Take the Battle of Kunesdorf as an example. Frederick the Great’s first attack occupied the left-wing position of the Russian army and captured seventy artillery pieces, but they were all lost at the end of the day’s battle. All the results achieved in the first attack were written off from the ledger. If he postponed the latter part of the battle until the next day, even if he lost, he would not write off the victory in the first battle.
If the unfavorable situation of the battle can be anticipated before the battle is over, and we can try to reverse the situation, then we can write off the unfavorable result from our account book, and even become the basis for a greater victory. This means that if people carefully examine the tactical process of the battle, it will be easy to find that before the end of the battle, the results of each part of the battle are only temporary, and the total results may be offset, or even possible. Change in the opposite direction. If our army is defeated more, it also means that the enemy consumes more troops, so the enemy's critical moment must be more serious, and our advantage in the new army will be greater. If at this time the overall result suddenly becomes beneficial to us, and the battlefield and the spoils are taken back from the enemy by us, then all the power consumed by the enemy in seizing the battlefield and the spoils before will be transformed into our net profit, contrary to our previous Failure has become a ladder to greater victory. As a result, the glorious record that the enemy felt worthy of sacrifice during the short-term victory was wiped out, and all that was left was the feeling of regret for the sacrificed troops. The charm of victory and the catastrophe of defeat are so fickle on the battlefield.
In short, if our side has an absolute advantage and can defeat the enemy with a greater victory, then the best way is to reverse the battle before the battle (if it is really important) is over. Don’t wait. To start the second battle.
In 1760, when General Laudon fought a decisive battle in Lignitz, Marshal Dawn had the idea of helping him. But when Lao Dong failed, Daun did not give the assistance he deserved although he had sufficient troops.
This tells us that carrying out a arduous avant-garde battle before the battle is actually a bad strategy. If it is not something that cannot be done, it should be avoided as much as possible.
In addition, we have to study another issue.
If the end of a battle is equal to the end of a thing, then when a new battle is carried out, it cannot be used as a reason, but must be based on other circumstances. However, this conclusion conflicts with a spiritual force that we must consider, that is, revenge. From the highest commander to the lowest-ranking drummer all have this kind of sentiment. Therefore, revenge can most arouse the fighting spirit of the army. Of course, there is a premise that must be remembered here, that is, it is not the entire army that is defeated, but only a small part of it. Otherwise, the vengeance will surely fade because the entire army is frustrated.
From this point of view, in order to remedy the loss, especially when other conditions permit, when the second battle is launched, the above-mentioned mental power will be naturally used. In most cases, this second battle is definitely an offense, which is determined by the nature of things.
In many non-main battles, there are many examples of this kind of use of revenge. However, large-scale battles usually do not depend on revenge, but are determined by many other reasons.
In Montmiral, the venerable Blücher, on the third day after his two armies were defeated, led the third army to the same battlefield again on February 14, 1814. This is totally Vengeance drove him to do this. If he knew that Napoleon himself might be the one who met him, then he would definitely not dare to take revenge; but he thought it was Marmont that he met, and his noble revenge brought him. The tragic ending was finally failed again due to miscalculations.
The distance between several units that have the same combat mission is determined by the duration of the battle and the moment of deciding the victory or defeat. If this configuration is for the same battle, it is a tactical deployment. However, there is a situation that must be pointed out, that is, when they are too close to conduct two independent battles, that is, when the space they occupy is regarded as a stronghold strategically, this configuration is regarded as a stronghold. It is a tactical deployment. However, it is often the case in wars that even units with the same combat mission must maintain a considerable distance. Although their main intention is to fight the same battle, they may also fight separately. Therefore, this configuration is regarded as a strategic deployment.
This type of strategic deployment includes: the army is divided into several parts or divided into several columns to march; some avant-garde and side troops are sent, or a reserve army is determined to support more than one strategic point; the army is concentrated in scattered camps, etc. . One can find that this type of strategic deployment is often seen. If they are strategically regarded as auxiliary coins, then main battles and battles of the same nature are regarded as gold coins and silver coins.
Does the battle require mutual agreement
"Without mutual consent, there will be no fighting." Fighting is based on this point. Many historical writers have put forward a series of opinions based on this idea, but they have come to many vague and wrong ideas.
These writers always repeat this point of view in their discourse: one commander challenges another commander, but the challenged person does not meet the challenge.
We believe that fighting comes from fighting, but it is very different from fighting. The composition of the battle base includes the desire of both parties to fight, that is to say, both parties agree to fight; and the purpose of generating the fight. These goals always belong to the larger whole. Accordingly, if the whole war is regarded as a struggle, then its political goals and conditions also belong to the larger whole. Therefore, the purpose of wanting to defeat the opponent itself is also in a subordinate position. To put it more clearly, this purpose cannot exist independently, but can only be regarded as the nerve on which a higher will depends.
The phrase "to challenge the enemy in vain" has some meaning in ancient nations, even in the early days of the emergence of the standing army. The battles of various ethnic groups in ancient times were carried out on the battlefield without any obstacles. All deployments were based on this. Therefore, the deployment and formation of the army was a manifestation of all the military art at that time, that is, it was reflected in the quality of the battle formation. .
At that time, the army was generally stationed in the camp. Under normal circumstances, it would not infringe on the camp. The battle was only possible after the enemy left the camp and came to an open area.
If someone says that Hannibal’s challenge to Phibias is in vain, for Phibias, it means that this battle is not part of his plan, and does not prove that Hannibal possesses material or spiritual aspects. What an advantage; but for Hannibal, this statement makes sense, because at least Hannibal really wants to fight.
The great battles and battles of the standing army when they first appeared were very similar to ancient wars. That is, if a huge army wants to fight, it must be formed into a battle formation, and then command it to fight. Such an army is often a large and clumsy whole, and it can only fight on the plains. Once it encounters complex or hidden terrain and mountains, it cannot attack and defend. Therefore, the defender will easily find a way to avoid fighting. Although such a situation is rare, it happened in the first Silesian War. It was not until the Seven Years' War that the offensive began on the complex terrain and gradually developed in this direction. In modern times, for those who want to use terrain to fight, although terrain can increase his power, it is no longer possible to influence the course of war as before.
In the past thirty years, the terrain can no longer constrain the development of war. Those who want to really decide the victory or defeat through battle will definitely be able to find the enemy and launch an offensive by any means. Otherwise, it can only mean that he does not want to fight. Therefore, this statement of challenging the enemy but not accepting the challenge can only show today that he believes that the timing of the battle is not good for him. In other words, this statement is nothing more than an excuse for him, just to conceal the truth of the matter.
However, even today, although defenders can no longer refuse to fight, there is still another way to avoid fighting, that is, abandoning the position and then the task of defending the position. In this way, only half of the victory was achieved for the attacker, and we have to admit that he has the upper hand temporarily.
Therefore, it is outdated to challenge the enemy without the enemy. It can only be used to prove that the attacker wants to conceal his stagnation. If the defender does not retreat, it means that he has not refused to fight. As long as he has not been attacked, we can also think that he is challenging in another way, and that is indeed the case.
Now, as long as it is a person who wants or can escape the battle, he will definitely not choose to be forced to fight. Of course, as far as the attacker is concerned, he does not want to easily gain benefits from the enemy's escape, but always hopes to obtain a real victory. Therefore, he will try his best to find and use extremely rare but feasible methods to force the opponent to challenge.
There are two main methods for forcing the opponent to fight. The first is to encircle, which means that the enemy has no way to retreat, and would rather choose to accept the battle; the second is surprise attack, but this method is very convenient for transportation now. The times have no effect. The modern army has great flexibility and maneuverability. Even in front of the enemy, he dares to retreat. Unless the terrain is extremely unfavorable, it will cause great difficulties and dangers to the retreat.
The Battle of Neresheim is such an example. On August 11, 1796, Archduke Carl launched this battle against Morrow at Mount Lloyd. His purpose was to make it easier for him to retreat. However, until now we have not fully understood why this famous commander and author took this action.
In the battle of Rosbach, if the commander of the coalition did not want to attack Frederick the Great, then this battle would be another matter.
In the battle of Sol, Frederick the Great admitted that he accepted the battle because he felt it was very dangerous to retreat in front of the enemy; in addition, Frederick the Great also told us other reasons why he accepted the battle.
All in all, except for real night attacks, surprise attacks are rare. Even if you choose to encircle the tactics to force the enemy to fight, you can only fight against a separate army, such as against the Fink in the Battle of Maxson.
Main battle-the moment when the main battle will be determined
What is the main battle? It refers to the struggle between the main forces of both sides. Obviously, it is not a secondary struggle for a secondary purpose, nor is it a purely tentative activity that you want to give up as soon as you realize that the purpose is not easy to achieve, but for a real victory. The fight with all their strength.
As far as a major battle is concerned, the secondary objective and the primary objective may also be mixed together. Since the main battles have different situations, they must have their own characteristics, because a major battle is often closely linked to a larger whole, and at best it is only a part of the whole. The essence of war is struggle, and the main battle is precisely the struggle between the main forces of the two sides. Therefore, the main battle must always be regarded as the true center of the war. All in all, the most obvious feature of the main battle is that it is the most independent compared to other battles.
This directly affects how the main battle will determine the outcome and the effect of the victory of the main battle; at the same time, it also determines how the theory should evaluate the main battle as a means to achieve the goal.
Therefore, we choose the main battle as the object of special research, and before talking about the special purpose related to it, we must first conduct a general study on it, because a real main battle can be changed without some special purpose. of.
Because the main battle has greater independence, its victory or defeat must depend on itself. In other words, as long as there is a glimmer of hope of victory, you must do your utmost to win in the main battle, unless there is a big difference in the strength of the two sides. The main battle must not be given up for individual reasons.
So, how can we correctly judge the moment of victory
According to the general laws of modern military art, a certain special organization and formation of the army is the main condition for the army to display its brave spirit and win victory. Then, once this formation is destroyed, it means that the moment of victory or defeat is determined. If one wing is defeated, it means that the fate of the other teams still in the battle has also been determined. If in the past, the essence of defense is that the army is closely integrated with ground obstacles and terrain, and the army and the position seem to be integrated, then the moment of occupying the main location of this position is the time to decide the victory or defeat. Therefore, it is often said that if the main position is lost, the entire position is also lost, and the battle cannot continue. At this time, the defeated party is like a broken string instrument, and can no longer play beautiful music.
Whether it is the former geometrical principle or the latter geographical principle, one thing must be the same, that is, it is impossible for the combat army to be used until the last person is like a crystal. These two principles have almost lost their effect now, at least it is impossible to play a leading role. Although the modern army also pays attention to a certain formation when entering the battle, the formation can no longer play a decisive role; although the complex terrain in modern warfare still plays a certain role in resistance, it is no longer the only decisive factor.
In the second section of this chapter, we have launched a general discussion on the characteristics of modern battles. According to this argument, the battle formation is just a way to facilitate the use of the army, and the process of a battle is the process in which one side consumes the other side's forces. Whoever exhausts the other side's forces first means whoever wins.
Therefore, compared with any other battle, who will give up fighting in the main battle depends on the remaining forces of the reserve forces on both sides, because only the full spiritual strength of this reserve army is still retained, and those who have been burned by the war The exhausted troops have very little spiritual power left and cannot be compared with them. As mentioned before, the loss of a region can also be used as a measure of mental power damage, so it is also included in our scope of investigation, but it is often regarded as a sign of loss, rather than as a loss itself. . It can be seen that the main concern of the two commanders is the number of reserve forces that have not yet entered the battle.
The development trend of the battle may not be obvious at the beginning, but it is often already established. Sometimes this trend has been basically determined in the deployment of battles. If a commander does not see this trend, and engages in a battle under very unfavorable conditions, it means that he lacks this ability to recognize. If this trend has not been determined during the deployment of the battle and at the beginning of the battle, the balance of power will definitely change gradually during the battle. As we said earlier, this change may not be obvious at first, but over time Over time, changes become more and more obvious. The change in the balance of power during the battle is not as fickle as those who do not understand the battle imagine.
Although the balance of power may not be destroyed for a long period of time, or the balance of power can be restored after one party loses, and the other party loses as a result, there is no doubt that in many cases, the commander who was defeated before the retreat has long been aware of this. Kind of change. If some people say that individual circumstances have had a fundamental impact on the entire process of the battle by surprise, then the vast majority of this is an excuse for the defeated to deliberately conceal their defeat in the battle.