There is no doubt that the elimination of the enemy’s army is the goal of all battles, but other objectives are often combined with the elimination of the enemy’s army, and sometimes even dominate. Therefore, there are two situations that we must distinguish clearly: one is the elimination of the enemy's army as the main goal; the other is the elimination of the enemy's army as a main means. As the general task of a battle, in addition to destroying the enemy's army, it may also be to occupy a place or obtain a goal. This kind of overall task is sometimes single, and may be just one of the three, but sometimes there may be more than one. As far as the latter is concerned, one item is often the most important. In the two main forms of combat that we will talk about, offensive and defensive, the first of the first three is the same, but the other two are different. The list is as follows:
Offensive combat defensive combat
(1) Destroy enemy troops (1) Destroy enemy troops
(2) Occupy a place (2) Defend a place
(3) Get a goal (3) Defend a goal
It must be pointed out that the above chart does not include all purposes, and reconnaissance and feints are excluded, because any item in the icon is obviously not the purpose of this type of battle. Therefore, we can only admit that there is a fourth purpose. A closer inspection is not difficult to find that reconnaissance is to expose the enemy, harassment is to exhaust the enemy, and feint is to keep the enemy in one place or lead it to another place. All these goals must be achieved indirectly through one of the above three goals (usually the second). In order to conduct reconnaissance, you can only pretend to attack or act like expelling the opponent. Of course, the purpose of this false loan is not the real purpose, but what we are discussing here is precisely the real purpose. Therefore, we have to add a fourth purpose to the three purposes of the attacker-an attempt to induce the enemy to take wrong measures. In other words, it is a feint. The nature of this purpose can only be offense, which is determined by the nature of things.
In addition, it must be clear that there are generally two ways to defend a place. One is hard, that is, you must stick to that place; the other is soft, that is, you only need to defend for a period of time. The latter situation often occurs in the front and back warfare.
As we all know, combat missions determine the deployment of combat itself. For example, the method used to divert the enemy's sentry away from their location is definitely different from the method used to completely annihilate them. To use another analogy, the method used to firmly guard a place is not the same as the method used to temporarily strike the enemy. For the former, it is impossible to consider retreat; for the latter, retreat has become the main thing.
The above-mentioned problems belong to the category of tactics, and they are listed here to illustrate the problem. Regarding how to look at combats for different purposes strategically, they will be discussed separately in the relevant chapters. I just want to explain the following points.
First, the importance of these objectives decreases in the order listed in the above chart; second, the first objective occupies the primary position in the main battle; third, the latter two objectives of defensive combat are completely negative. Can not bring real benefits, unless it is conducive to achieve other positive goals, otherwise it will not bring any benefits. Therefore, the more such battles, the worse the strategic situation.
Duration of the battle
When we begin to study the relationship between combat and various aspects of the army, then its duration has a specific meaning.
The duration of the battle can be seen as a secondary and subordinate result of the battle. On this issue, the victorious party and the losing party feel completely different. For the victorious side, the sooner the battle will be determined, the better, because the faster the victory comes, the greater the effect; for the losing side, the longer the fighting time, the better, because the later the defeat , The smaller the loss.
Especially in relatively defensive battles, this is particularly important.
In a relatively defensive battle, the duration of the battle can determine the overall outcome of the battle. For this reason, we can also consider the duration of the battle as a strategic element.
There is an inseparable internal connection between the duration of the battle and the main conditions of the battle. These conditions include: the absolute number of forces rather than relative numbers, the strength of the two sides, the ratio of arms, and the nature of the terrain. For example, 20,000 people will not be consumed as easily as 2,000; an enemy whose resistance is one or two times larger than itself will not last as long as an enemy of equal strength; and a cavalry battle is easier than an infantry battle. Decide the outcome; battles with infantry alone will determine the outcome faster than battles with artillery; in the mountains and forests, the speed of advance is not as fast as on the plains. These are all obvious.
This shows that if you want to use the duration of the battle to achieve the intended goal, you have to consider the number of troops, the ratio of the arms, and the situation of the equipment. We conduct a special discussion on this issue, not to arrive at this rule, but to connect the main conclusions drawn by experience in this respect with this rule.
An ordinary division consisting of 8,000 to 10,000 people of various arms can resist for several hours even if it is against an enemy with a large advantage, and it is on a relatively unfavorable terrain; if the enemy’s advantage is not obvious , Or not at all dominant, then the resistance time can be extended to half a day. An army composed of three or four divisions can resist twice as long as a division; while an army composed of 80,000 to 100,000 people can resist twice or three times longer. In other words, these troops can fight alone in the above-mentioned time without relying on assistance. If there are reinforcements from other armies during this period of time, the role of these armies can immediately be combined with the results of the battles that have already been carried out, and this is still one battle rather than two battles.
The above figures are based on our experience. However, we believe that there are two important issues that must be further clarified, namely, the time to determine the outcome of the battle and the time to end the battle.
The moment to decide the outcome of the battle
The outcome of any battle cannot be decided at a certain moment at once. There are some extremely important moments in all battles, which play a decisive role in the decision of victory or defeat. The failure of a battle is often not sudden, but gradually formed. However, there must be an important moment in all battles, which can be regarded as the moment to determine the outcome of this battle. The battle that takes place after this moment can only be regarded as a new battle and cannot be regarded as the original one. The battle continues. If you can have a clear concept of this moment, it is very important to consider whether you can use reinforcements to effectively continue the battle when the battle is lost.
Because of the failure to clearly grasp the moment of determining the outcome of the war, people sometimes use up the fresh forces needlessly in some irreversible battles; on the contrary, in battles where there are still opportunities, sometimes they miss the advantage of using the fresh forces to restore the defeat Timing, these are irreparable losses. The following two examples best illustrate the problem.
In 1806, the Marquis of Hohenlohe used 35,000 troops in a battle with Napoleon’s 60,000 to 70,000 troops near Jena. The result was a miserable defeat, almost completely annihilated; but the defeat was determined. , General Luchel tried to bring the battle back to life with 12,000 troops, but the result could only be whimsical and ended in destruction.
To give another example, on that day, about 25,000 Prussian troops and 28,000 French troops led by Daou fought near Olstadt until noon. The result was defeat, but the strength of the troops remained. The losses suffered were similar to those of the opponent without cavalry at all. The Prussian army missed the opportunity. At this time, it was possible to use the 18,000 reserve forces led by General Carlcroyt to reverse the situation, but they did not do so. If this was done at that time, then this battle might not have been defeated, and it would even turn defeat into victory.
All battles form a whole, and the results of each part of the battle are combined into a total result in this whole. This result can determine the outcome of the battle. This overall result may not be the kind of victory we talked about in the fourth quarter, because sometimes it may be impossible to predict that victory will be achieved, and sometimes because the enemy retreats early and broke his original plan. In many cases, even in battles where the enemy is stubbornly resisting, the moment of deciding victory is always earlier than the moment when the main result that constitutes the concept of victory appears.
We can't help but ask: Under normal circumstances, when is the time when the outcome is determined, that is, when is it a waste of inaction to use a more powerful force to reverse the situation
If the feint that doesn't matter whether you win or lose is excluded, it is:
(1) If the purpose of the battle is to capture one of the opponent's goals, then when the opponent loses this goal, the victory or defeat is determined.
(2) If the purpose of the battle is to occupy a place, then the moment when the outcome is determined is the moment when the opponent loses this place. But it’s not always the same, and it’s only when the area to be occupied is particularly difficult to conquer. If it is a location that is very easy to capture, no matter how important it is, the enemy will take it back without risking it.
(3) On all occasions except for the above, especially when the main purpose is to destroy the enemy's army, the moment of deciding the victory or defeat depends on the strong cohesion of the victor and strong fighting spirit, while the losing party Even adding more troops (about this, we have already talked about in Chapter 3, Section 12) will not help. Based on this reasoning, we strategically use this moment as the basis for dividing combat units.
In the course of battle, if the enemy’s army has only a very small amount of disorder or loss of combat capability, and our side is completely in a state of disarray to a large extent, then we cannot resume fighting; if the enemy completely loses combat capability, but soon Once again, then we still can’t resume fighting.
Therefore, the smaller the part of the actual combat force, which means that the greater the part of the reserve force (this alone can affect the outcome), the more likely it is that the opponent wants to use the new force to reverse the situation. small. Any commander and army that can reasonably use their forces in battle and can make full use of the mental effects of the reserve army at any time can achieve greater victory. We have to admit that in modern warfare, the French army, especially when fighting under Napoleon's command, often did a very good job in this regard.
In addition, the victorious side has fewer troops participating in the war, the sooner the time to eliminate the critical moment of the battle and regain combat capability will come. For example, after a small group of cavalry quickly pursues the enemy, it can regain its original formation in just a few minutes, and the crisis can be quickly eliminated. However, it will take a long time for the entire cavalry regiment to restore its original order; It takes longer for infantry in the skirmish state to restore their original formation. If it is a multi-armed unit, the formation will be chaotic at the beginning of the battle due to the different forward directions of its various parts, and it is impossible for each other to know each other's position clearly, and the formation will become more chaotic. , So it will undoubtedly take longer to restore the formation. The victorious side has to reorganize and assemble the army, rectify a little bit, arrange suitable locations, and restore order on the battlefield. This also takes a long time. It can be said that the larger the team, the longer it will take to restore order.
Obviously, when the winner has not adjusted the state, the arrival of night will naturally postpone the time to restore order. In addition, the complex terrain and hidden areas will also delay the arrival of this moment. But then again, the night is also an effective cover for the winner, because it is almost impossible for the loser to use the night attack to achieve good results. It is rare to see successful examples like the attack on Marmont in Langcheng York on March 10, 1814. Similarly, concealed ground and complex terrain can also play a cover for the victor who has been in a critical moment for a long time, making it impossible for the enemy to counterattack. Therefore, dark nights, hidden places and complex terrain will be more difficult for losers who want to resume the battle.
The reinforcements of the losers we talked about earlier specifically refers to simply increased forces, that is, reinforcements transferred from behind, because this situation is generally more common. Of course, if reinforcements accidentally attack the opponent's flank or back, it's another matter.
We will discuss the effects of flank attacks and behind attacks in the strategic context in other chapters. What we are discussing here is that the flank attack and the back attack used to restore the fight belong to the category of tactics. We discuss it because of the tactical effects we must talk about, and the concept must be related to the tactical category.
Army attacks on the sides and back of the enemy may greatly increase the effectiveness of the attack, but this is not always the case, and sometimes it may be counterproductive. This issue depends on the various conditions of the battle, and we do not want to discuss it in depth here. But the following two points help our current research problem.
First, the impact of flank attacks and back attacks on the outcome of the outcome after the decision is usually greater than the impact on the decision itself. When the battle resumes, the first thing you should do is to fight for victory, rather than just care about the results. As for this point, we believe that a reinforcement army that has come to try to resume fighting should rendezvous with the original army instead of directly attacking the enemy's flank and back. In most cases, this is true, but we have to admit that sometimes it is not. The reason is that the following second point may play a very important role.
Second, reinforcements coming to resume fighting may bring unexpected mental effects.
Unexpectedly attacking the enemy's flank and back will have a great effect, because the enemy in a critical moment is often scattered and it is difficult to resist such an attack. If it is at the beginning of the battle, due to the concentration of the enemy’s forces, it will definitely be prepared for flank attacks and back attacks, so this kind of attack will not play a big role at the beginning of the battle, but when the battle is nearing the end, it is completely different. Circumstances have allowed them to take advantage of it.
Therefore, we can only frankly admit that, in many cases, reinforcements can produce unexpected effects when they raided the enemy's flank or back, just as the same force acts on the longer end of the arm to play a greater role. An army that has no hope of resuming fighting from a frontal attack can resume fighting if it unexpectedly attacks the enemy's flank or back. Spiritual power plays a major role here, and its effects are inestimable, so boldness and risk-taking are extremely important.
When it is still unknown whether or not a defeated battle can be restored, we must take into account the effects of the various interacting forces mentioned earlier.
Before the battle is over, the new battles carried out by the reinforcements can be completely integrated with the original battles to achieve a common result, so that the original defeat can be easily written off from the account book. However, when the outcome of the battle has been determined, that is another matter. The new battle carried out by the reinforcements will produce new results. If the reinforcements are very small and difficult to fight against the enemy, then it is almost impossible to obtain a favorable result for the newly started battle. On the contrary, if this support army is strong enough to carry out the next battle independently, and finally wins, and even unexpected gains, but despite this, the defeat of the previous battle cannot be written off from the ledger.