introduction
In the previous chapter, we looked at the factors that play a role in war, and what we want to study next is the real military activity-combat. This kind of battle can directly or indirectly reflect the ultimate goal of the war through material and spiritual effects. Therefore, in the process of discussing this kind of activity and its effects, the aforementioned strategic factors will inevitably appear.
The deployment of battles belongs to the category of tactics. To understand the general situation of battles, it is only necessary to conduct a general investigation. However, in the actual application process, since the direct goals of each war are different, it is impossible for each battle to be the same. We will talk about these direct goals in the future. However, in contrast, the general nature of the battle is more important than the specific nature of the battle, because most battles are very similar. Before discussing the specific issues of combat, let us first examine the general nature of combat, so that we can avoid repeating the general nature of combat everywhere.
Therefore, in the second section, we will briefly analyze the characteristics of modern battles from a tactical point of view. Please remember that we are discussing the concept of combat based on modern battles.
Characteristics of modern battles
According to the concept of tactics and strategy we are talking about, it is obvious that strategy will change with the change of tactics. In other words, when the characteristics of the tactics are completely different in this or that situation, then the strategy will inevitably change accordingly, which is reasonable and reasonable. Therefore, before we further discuss how to use the main battles strategically, it is necessary to clarify the characteristics of the modern main battles.
So, how does a big battle usually take place? The first is to properly deploy a large number of troops in front, back, left, and right, and then put a small part of their forces into firepower combat according to the relevant proportions, and let them fight for a few hours. In addition, they also often interspersed with small-scale charges and fights. Or the cavalry attacked and formed a see-saw state. When this small part of the force gradually exhausts its combat power in this stage, it will be withdrawn and replaced by another part of the force.
For example, the battle is slowly burning like damp gunpowder, proceeding in an orderly manner. When night falls and the sky is dark, no one will blindly attack at this time, so the battle will be terminated. At this time, we have to estimate how much troops are left for use by the enemy and us, that is, how many vigorous and active troops are left; in addition, we must estimate the gains and losses of the position and the security situation behind them; finally, estimate these. As a result, the courage and weakness, wit and stupidity of the enemy and the enemy can be summed up to form an overall impression. Based on these, it can be judged whether it is advantageous to withdraw from the battlefield immediately or to restart the battle tomorrow morning.
It should be noted that the above description does not represent the full picture of modern battles, but outlines the basic tone of the picture of modern battles. It is applicable to both attackers and defenders. In this picture, we add some other special colors, such as the intended purpose, terrain, etc., which will not change its basic color.
In fact, it is inevitable that modern battles have such characteristics. The reason is that in terms of military organization and military art, the level of the enemy and ours is basically the same; in addition, modern warfare is mainly caused by major national interests, and the elements of war have broken through various constraints and developed along the natural direction. . As long as these two situations exist, this characteristic of the battle will always be present.
The general concept of modern battles will be applicable in many places when we explain the value of various conditions such as military strength and terrain in the future. However, the above situation only applies to general, large-scale, and even decisive battles, or similar battles; as for those small-scale battles, although their characteristics are also developing in this respect, they are relatively large-scale battles. In other words, the degree of change is trivial. This point has already belonged to the scope of tactical research, and we will make some appropriate supplements in the future to make it clearer and more specific.
Introduction to Combat
Only fighting is a real military activity, and all other activities serve the war. In this section, we must carefully study the nature of combat.
Fighting is fighting, and the purpose is to eliminate or subdue the enemy through struggle, and the enemy refers to the army that opposes us in a specific battle.
This is a simple concept about fighting, and we will talk about it later. Now, we must first talk about some other concepts.
If we regard the country and its military power as a whole, there is no doubt that war will also be regarded as a large-scale battle. However, modern warfare is more complicated. It consists of many battles that occur simultaneously or successively, large and small. Military activities are divided into many individual operations. The reason is that the modern war situation is extremely complicated.
The ultimate goal of modern warfare, that is, the political goal is always very complicated. Because many conditions and attempts are linked to military operations, it will complicate the originally very simple purpose. This makes this political purpose impossible to achieve through a single large-scale struggle, only through the formation of a single Many large and small activities as a whole can be achieved. Every activity is a part of the whole, and they have their own special purpose, and then they are closely linked to the whole through these purposes.
As mentioned earlier, all strategic actions can be attributed to the concept of combat, because the so-called strategic action is the use of the army, and the use of the army must be based on the concept of combat. Therefore, within the scope of the strategy, all military activities can be attributed to combat, and only the general purpose of combat can be studied. Of course, with regard to the special purpose of fighting, as long as we talk about some issues related to them, we will elaborate on them in detail. You know, whether it is a big or a small battle, it has its special purpose, and it is subordinate to the whole. It can be seen that destroying and subduing the enemy is only a means to this end. In fact, it is true.
It must be pointed out that this conclusion is correct on the surface, and its purpose is to make the various concepts logically interconnected, which is very important. The reason why we elaborate on this point is precisely to avoid looking at the problem in this way.
What counts as subduing the enemy? There is only one answer, which is to destroy his army. Regardless of whether the method of killing or other methods is used, whether it is to completely eliminate the opponent or only a part of the opponent, so that the opponent cannot continue to fight. Therefore, when we put aside the special purpose of each battle, the answer becomes very simple. The only purpose of all battles is to destroy the enemy in whole or in part.
In general, and especially in the case of large-scale battles, that special purpose--that is, to give the battle a special character, and to make it interconnect with the larger whole--is at best a general purpose of the battle. The way of change, or just a special purpose subordinate to a general purpose. In terms of giving combat a special nature, it is indeed important, but compared with the general purpose, it appears secondary; in other words, achieving a special purpose is just completing the secondary task of the combat. If this conclusion is correct, then it is obvious that the belief that the elimination of the enemy’s army is only a means and not the ultimate goal is correct on the surface, but wrong in essence. In fact, the special purpose of combat also includes the destruction of the enemy's army, and the special purpose is only a slight modification of the destruction of the enemy's army. If you don't look at it this way, it is easy to lead to wrong conclusions.
Before the recent wars, it was precisely because people could not view this issue correctly, some wrong opinions, prejudices, and incomplete theoretical systems appeared; the more theories believed that no real tools were needed, that is to say, the less demanded they were. Eliminating the enemy makes this theory worse and worse.
The reason for the above-mentioned theoretical system is that certain wrong premises have been put forward, and some mistakenly thought to be effective means to replace the enemy's army. So as long as there is a chance in the future, we must continue to fight against this kind of error. If we want to study combat, we must emphasize the importance of destroying the enemy's army and its true value, and prevent mistakes caused by pure superficial truth.
However, how to prove that in the general case and in the most important case, the most important thing is to destroy the enemy's army? How will we treat the following wonderful ideas? This idea is like this: It is believed that some of the enemy’s forces can be eliminated directly through a more ingenious way, and then more of the enemy’s forces are indirectly eliminated; or some smaller but extremely ingenious attacks are used to make the enemy into a state of paralysis. In this way, the enemy's spirit is defeated, and this method is regarded as the best shortcut. Yes, fighting in different locations may have different values. From a strategic point of view, there is indeed the problem of cleverly deploying combat. Strategy is an art of tactical deployment. We admit this, but we must point out that the most important thing is to directly destroy the enemy's army. Here, we just want to work hard to clarify the extremely important significance of the basic principle of destroying enemy forces.
At the same time, we must also point out that we are not talking about tactics but strategy, that is, we are not talking about tactics that can be used to eliminate a large number of enemy forces without any effort. In our view, the direct elimination of the enemy is a tactical result, so we believe that major strategic results are caused by major tactical results. As we have discussed in detail before, tactical results are of great significance in battle. .
It is not difficult to prove this argument, and the proof is as follows. Any complicated or clever action will take a long time. Is a simple attack more effective? Or is it more complicated and ingenious to attack more effectively? If the enemy is regarded as passive, then of course the latter is more effective. But then again, any complex attack takes a long time, and it is very difficult to win ample time. Only in this case-that is, part of our army is attacked by the enemy, but there is no It is only possible when the effect of the overall preparations of the army is destroyed. If during the preparation process, the enemy decides to launch an extremely simple offensive in a short period of time, it will give the enemy an advantage, which will make our grand plan useless. Therefore, when we measure the value of a complex attack, we must consider all the dangers that may occur during the preparation period. If we want to use complex attack methods, unless the enemy’s simple attack will not destroy our preparations; once the enemy’s simple attack destroys our preparations, we can only passively adopt relatively simple actions, while still Try to take simpler actions based on the enemy's characteristics, state, and other circumstances, otherwise you will be more disadvantaged. If we carefully consider the actual situation and avoid the vague impressions brought by those abstract concepts, we will find that an agile, brave and decisive enemy will definitely prevent us from planning large-scale ingenious attacks by every means; and To deal with such an enemy, military genius is particularly important. Having said that, things have become very clear, simple and direct action effects are more important than complex action effects.
Of course, a simple attack is not the best attack, but the preparation time for the attack must be within the specified range, and the more the enemy has the spirit of martial arts, the more direct attack is needed. It can be said that a complicated plan is required to defeat the enemy, it is better to adopt a simple plan, so as to always walk in front of the enemy.
In the above-mentioned two styles of play based on wisdom and based on courage, people always believe that superior wisdom plus ordinary courage has a greater effect than outstanding courage plus ordinary wisdom. However, considering these two factors from a logical point of view, there is no doubt that in dangerous areas where courage plays a leading role, courage is more important than wisdom.
Through these abstract investigations, we must further point out that we can only draw the above-mentioned logical conclusion through actual experience, and will not draw the opposite conclusion, and our investigation is based on actual experience.
Anyone who can read history impartially knows that in all military virtues, the military must rely on fighting courage to gain honor and success.
In all wars, the elimination of the enemy’s army must be regarded as the most important thing. This is a principle that we should adhere to. As for how to implement this principle, and how to adapt this principle to all the forms and conditions necessary for the various situations that lead to war, I will leave it to future research.
Through the previous discussion, we basically explained the general importance of this principle; next, we continue to discuss combat based on the above conclusions.
Introduction to Combat (continued)
In the previous section, it was mentioned that the purpose of fighting is to destroy the enemy, and I want to prove through special investigations that this is almost always the case, because destroying the enemy's army is always the most important thing in a war. For those that are mixed with the main purpose of destroying the enemy’s army, or are of some importance to other purposes, we will briefly discuss in the next section, and then further clarify; and here, we It puts aside the other purposes of the battle, and only considers the elimination of the enemy as the sole purpose of the battle.
How should we understand the sentence of destroying the enemy's army? The answer should be that the loss of the enemy's army far exceeds ours. If our army has an absolute advantage in quantity, then when the absolute amount of losses on both sides is the same, it can be proved that our losses are smaller than the enemy's. Therefore, this is beneficial to our side. As mentioned earlier, here we are discussing combat without regard to other purposes of combat. Therefore, other purposes that are used to indirectly destroy more enemy forces should also be excluded. In this way, the benefits directly obtained in the process of mutual killing and offensive should be regarded as the only purpose, because only this kind of benefit is the real benefit, which can be kept on the account book of the whole battle forever and be settled at the end. It is always a net profit. Here, it is necessary to cite an example to illustrate various other victories, such as those obtained through other purposes that are not involved here, or merely providing a temporary relative benefit, and so on.
For example, we have defeated the enemy with ingenious deployment, so that he has to take great risks if he wants to continue fighting, and finally retreat after weighing the pros and cons and resisting a little. However, if in the process of subduing the enemy, the losses of the enemy and our army are similar, then this victory (if this result is called a victory) has no value in the total settlement of the battle. Therefore, this method of subduing the enemy (to prevent the enemy from continuing to fight) is not among the issues to be examined here, so it is not included in the definition of the purpose of destroying the enemy. In other words, only the purpose of direct gains in the process of mutual destruction and offensive can be included in this definition. This kind of direct benefits includes both the losses suffered by the enemy during the offensive process and the losses suffered directly by the enemy during the retreat.