Let's talk now about the impact of the other side's victory on our people and government. This effect includes their desperate desires vanished, a devastating blow to their self-esteem, and the fear that replaces them, spreading everywhere, eventually causing them to fall into a state of complete paralysis. This is the main battle, the most deadly blow to the central nervous system of the warring party. Although this effect is different in different environments, it is absolutely impossible to not have it at all. Faced with this situation, people instead of actively playing their role in order to reverse the defeat, they worry that their efforts will be useless, so they hesitate to move forward under the situation that they should be going forward, and even get rid of them, letting their fate decide.
In the course of the war, the outcome of the influence of this victory is determined by the character and talent of the commander, as well as the various conditions for victory and the various advantages that victory brings. Of course, if the commander does not have the relevant talents and the spirit of courage, then even the most glorious victory will not bring the greatest results. However, even if the commander possesses the relevant talents and courageous spirit, and these mental powers are severely restricted by various conditions, they will soon be lost. If it was Frederick the Great, not Marshal Dawn, who took advantage of the victory at the Battle of Colin; if it was France, not Prussia, who fought the Battle of Leden, the results would be very different!
As for the various conditions that promote victory to produce results, we will do more research when discussing related issues. Only then can it be explained clearly why there are various different phenomena between victory and its results. On the surface, this seems to be due to the lack of courage of the winner. We only want to study the main battle itself here, and don't want to deviate from this topic, so we only point out: victory will definitely have the above-mentioned influence, and this influence can only increase with the increase of victory. The more a battle becomes the main battle, that is to say, the more all combat forces are concentrated in a battle, the more military strength is used as combat strength, and the more the nation's power is regarded as military strength, the impact of victory will naturally be affected. Bigger.
However, should the theory justify that the effects of victory are completely inevitable? Shouldn't theories try to find effective ways to eliminate this influence? Faced with this question, it seems natural to answer in the affirmative, but, may God bless us, do not like most theorists, both for and against, so as to let ourselves go on a contradictory astray.
In fact, the above-mentioned influence is completely unavoidable, and the nature of things determines this influence. Even if we find a way to avoid it, it still exists, just like a cannonball. Even if it is fired from east to west, its speed will be reduced as the earth rotates, but as the earth Its rotation is still in motion.
Human weakness is indispensable for the entire war, and it is precisely aimed at this weakness.
Although on another occasion, we will talk about what should be done after the main battle fails; even in a desperate situation, we still have to study the possible means; even in such a situation, we believe that we may be able to take the lost Things are taken back again, but this does not mean that the effects of failure will gradually disappear, or even disappear at all. Because the power and methods that people used to redeem the defeat could have been used for some positive purposes. In addition to spiritual power, it also includes material power.
Another issue worthy of study is that the failure of a main battle will cause some forces that cannot be produced in the event of victory, such as revenge. Of course, you can imagine this situation, and it has actually happened in many ethnic groups. However, how such a strong reaction can be stimulated is no longer a question for military art to study. Military art will only study it under the assumption of such an effect.
The result of victory may become harmful because of counteraction and arouse the vengeance of the loser. Although this kind of situation is rare, since it exists, it is reasonable to believe that because the defeated nations or countries have different characteristics, the effects and responses of victory are also different.
Main battles (continued)-the use of battles
No matter how complicated the war in a specific situation is, we must admit that many situations are inevitable. As long as we start from the concept of war, we can affirm the following five points:
(1) The main principle of war is to destroy the enemy’s army. For the offensive party, this approach must be used to achieve the goal; (2) The enemy’s army must be destroyed through battle; (3) It has a general purpose but no Larger battles with more special purposes will produce big results; (4) If a general battle is composed of several battles, it will definitely produce the greatest result; (5) The commander personally directs only in the main battle. In this case, he will never take it lightly, and will definitely go all out, which also depends on the nature of things.
From the above five points, it is not difficult to draw a double rule, which includes two related aspects: the elimination of the enemy's army must be achieved through a general war and its results, and the general war must have the elimination of the enemy's army as the main goal.
Of course, the factor of destroying the enemy's army may be more or less included in other means. The situation is diverse. If various conditions are very favorable, a small battle may unexpectedly eliminate many enemy troops, such as the Maxon Battle; on the contrary, in some major battles, sometimes the main purpose is only to occupy or hold a position. All in all, the purpose of the main battle is to destroy the enemy's army, and the elimination of the enemy's army can only be accomplished through the main battle. This is the truth that no one can change.
Therefore, the main battle should be regarded as the concentrated expression of the war. It is the center of gravity of the entire war or the battle situation, just like the sun’s rays converge on the focal point of the concave mirror into the sun’s complete like burst of high temperature. The various strengths and conditions can be concentrated and produce huge effects.
In almost all wars, the army must be concentrated to a certain extent into a large whole. This shows that both the attacker and the defender have the idea of using this whole to conduct a large-scale battle. If there is no such big battle, it means that although there is a hostile complex, that is, the original motive of the war is at work, but at the same time there are other mitigating factors that weaken or completely hinder this effect. However, even if both sides stayed on hold (this is the characteristic of many wars in the past), they still regard the main battle as their future goal and the long-term goal that constitutes their plan. The more veritable the war is, the more it is used as a means of venting hostility and hatred, and subduing the opponent, so all activities are concentrated in the bloody battle, which shows the importance of the main battle.
Anyone who has great ambitions, that is, people whose goal is to defeat the other party, will definitely choose the most appropriate means of fighting the main force. And this method is precisely the best method. Those who are afraid of a big decisive battle and escape the main battle will surely suffer.
The attacker must have a positive goal, so the main battle is often the main method of the attacker. Although we cannot determine the concepts of offense and defense in more detail here, we must understand that even for defenders, if they want to adapt to the needs of defense more quickly and achieve their goals, they can only choose the main force to fight. This is the only effective means.
The main battle is the cruelest and most straightforward way to solve the problem. As we will elaborate on in the next section, although the main battle is not simply killing each other, it is more embodied in the effect of destroying the enemy’s courage, rather than killing the opponent’s soldiers, but bloodshed is always what it requires The price paid, and the word "slaughter" not only indicates the name of "battle", but also explains its nature-the word "battle" in German is derived from the word "slaughter". As a person, the commander will also shudder at this point.
However, what made the commander mentally stressed was that he wanted to decide the victory or defeat through this battle. Here, all actions are concentrated on a certain point in time and space, so people will inevitably feel that their forces cannot be deployed in this narrow space; they seem to think that as long as there is sufficient time, they will gain a lot of benefits. In fact, time does not bring any benefits. This is totally an illusion, but we must pay attention to this illusion. When a person is making any important decision, he will almost always be disturbed by this illusion; and when a commander is making such an important decision, his feeling will naturally become stronger.
Therefore, in every era, there are some governments and commanders who try to avoid decisive battles, hoping to achieve their goals while avoiding battles, or secretly abandon their goals. Therefore, some historians and theorists have tried every possible way to find equivalents that can replace decisive battles from these wars conducted by other methods, and even want to find more superior military art. As a result, today, some people, in accordance with the rules for the rational use of forces in wars, regard the main battle as a scourge caused by mistakes, which must be avoided in normal and rigorous wars. In their eyes, only those commanders who can conduct war in a bloodless manner are qualified to wear the crown, and those out-of-date war theories happen to take the teaching of this art as their task.
Modern history has denied this fallacy, but this does not mean that this fallacy will no longer reappear, and that people in power will no longer be tempted to believe this inverted view of right and wrong that caters to people's weaknesses and is easily accepted by people. Perhaps someone will soon think that Napoleon’s several battles were almost stupid, and once again praised the outdated and pretentious old-style deployment and play styles with appreciation and trust. If the theory can tell people that they must be alert to these things, then it will make a great contribution to those who are willing to follow the advice of the theory. I hope it will be of great help to the people of our dear motherland who can give their authoritative opinions on military issues, give them a guide in this regard, and ask them to seriously consider these issues.
Both the concept and experience of war tell us that to determine a significant victory or defeat, it must be done in a large-scale battle. From ancient times to the present, great victories have produced great achievements, which is almost the same for both attackers and defenders. Even Napoleon, if he was afraid of bloodshed, he would definitely not win the Battle of Ulm-this kind of victory was only once in all his wars, and this victory was undoubtedly his second victory in a previous battle. Bumper harvest. Therefore, whether it is a bold commander, a adventurous commander, or a stubborn commander, they all try to use the decisive battle as the necessary risky means to achieve their own careers, even those who only want to rely on luck. We are very satisfied with the answers to this critical question by these commanders.
As for those commanders who want to win without bleeding, we don't want to listen. Just because the slaughter is cruel and terrifying, we must take the war more seriously, instead of letting the Dao gain the upper hand, making the saber gradually blunt, and finally causing the other party to chop off our arms with a sharp sword.
We believe that a general battle can determine the main victory or defeat, not the indispensable and only one victory or defeat in a war or a battle. It is only in modern times that the victory or defeat of the entire battle can be determined by a single general battle. It is very rare to say that a general battle can determine the victory or defeat of the entire war.
The significance of the victory or defeat determined through a general battle depends not only on the scale of the general battle, that is, the strength of the forces invested in the battle and the victory of the battle, but also on many other circumstances such as the two countries and military strength. However, in large-scale battles invested by the main force of the existing army, the outcome of the decision must be the main one. The size of the victory or defeat is basically predictable, although not all. As the first victory, although it is not the only one, it will definitely have a profound impact on future success. Therefore, the meticulously planned main battle will always be the center and center of gravity of the entire current military operation to varying degrees, depending on the situation. The more rigorous the commander-in-chief attitude-that is, the true fighting spirit-into the war, the more he has the emotion and thinking to defeat the enemy-that is consciousness, the more he will desperately put all his power into the first time. During the battle, and will do everything possible to win the first battle. In the wars Napoleon was engaged in, almost every time he wanted to defeat the enemy in the first battle. Although the scale of the war fought by Frederick the Great was small and the crisis was not great, he was also working hard when he led a smaller army to attack the Russians or the imperial army from behind in order to open up a new world. .
We have said before that the significance of the victory or defeat determined by the main battle depends in part on the scale of the battle, that is to say, it depends on the number of troops participating in the battle and the outcome of the battle.
It is very obvious why the commander-in-chief can increase the number of troops participating in the battle, thereby increasing the role of the battle in determining the outcome of the battle. We just want to point out that if the scale of the main battle is larger, then the probability of the victory determined by the main battle will be greater. Therefore, any commander who is full of confidence and yearning for a complete victory will always find ways to put most of his troops into the general battle, taking into account other circumstances.
As for the size of the victory, it mainly depends on the following four conditions:
(1) What tactical form was adopted for the battle;
(2) What is the nature of the terrain;
(3) The proportions of various arms;
(4) Comparison of forces.
Only taking frontal offenses and avoiding roundabout battles will certainly receive less results than those achieved by adopting roundabout battles or forcing the opponent to change the frontal battle. In a battle on a complex terrain or on a mountainous terrain, the results will not be great either, because the offensive force will definitely be limited or weakened here.
If the victor’s cavalry is less than or equal to the loser’s cavalry, then the victory won by the victor will not be great, that is, part of the victory will be lost.
It is self-evident that under the same conditions of roundabout warfare or forcing the enemy to change the frontal battle, the victory achieved by superior forces is often greater than the victory achieved by inferior forces. People may question the validity of this principle in the face of facts based on the Battle of Leden. Here we have to say that there will always be exceptions to the rules.
Therefore, using the above four conditions, the commander can make his battles decisive. It is true that this will increase his risk, but all his activities are originally governed by the laws of mechanics of the spiritual world.
In this way, nothing can be more important than the main battle in the war. Therefore, providing the means for the main battle, cleverly determining the time and location of the main battle, the direction of the army's offensive, and using the results of the main battle are the most strategically intelligent manifestations.