History has proven, if you attack harder and bigger, you will win. Don't defend, just attack, if the enemy attacks, attack back but better. Never stop, just attack. War is about attacking. Just push.
History has proven, if you attack harder and bigger, you will win.
By jove I think he's right!
Initiative is everything, basically. If you can manoeuvre and the enemy can't, you've won.
Thank you for perfectly encapsulating the reason for Russia currently winning the war; they have maneuver warfare capabilities. Ukrainians do not.
Same is true in fights. Dont self defend, self attack.
This is very true for fights
The one who attack first and is more agressive usually Wins in street fights
>But what about that match in Boxing/MMA
I said street fights
Honestly the biggest trick to successful self defense is allowing the other person to hurt you just enough to justify wrecking their shit in a controlled manner.
the Clausewitz of our time, here on /k/, incredible
genghis khan: speed!
napoleon: speed!!!
hitler: speed!!!!!
No, you idiot, war is about winning.
If you are losing, you just have to change to winning instead.
I can't believe nobody ever figured this out before me.
TEMPO TEMPO TEMPO
TEMPO TEMPO TEMPO
Just reach the sea before they do bro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_offensive
This is how I’ve won 90% of my games of Civ4. You have to wait until you have a critical mass of units to start the attack or you losing a few critical units (artillery, stack protection, city raider, etc) will mean not being able to replenish them in time, but the optimal strategy is to just start making war and then just not stopping until you run out of money. If you play as the Romans it’s really easy to overexpand like this though. Financial leaders have it slightly easier.
I don't think we need more proof than this, op is correct
>watching every other civ flip a goodamn shit as I spend four turns mobilizing more nukes then god for Operation Mongolian Freedom
Nuclear weapons aren't something tou keep around just to look at, Isabela
NEVER ENOUGH DAKKA
That's just common sense.
The best defense is a good offense.
>no effort frogposting
This is why the left always wins. They are on the attack, with the initiative, and never ceasing in attempts to "progress." The right simply tries to conserve, which means they will always eventually lose.
Really wrong
A purely offensive strategy often leads to over extending of supply lines or vulnerability to counter encirclements
German focus solely on offense lead to predictable counter-offensives that would simply be ground down by artillery
Numerous counter-strategies to blunt attacks have succeeded in using defense or stalling for time to defeat an overly offensive mindset
Defense in depth works effectively in funnelling enemy offensive action into emtpy territory
Even the highly aggressive airland battle does not rely purely on sheer aggression, it keeps a large reserve uncommitted to throw in only after the enemy had
>German focus solely on offense
Mmm yes WW2 Germany never had any defensive doctrine
At the tactical level, germans emphasized meeting every attack with a counter attack
This aggressive disposition was ruthlessly exploited by making feint attacks and then pummelling the inevitable counter attack with artillery
This is an obvious example of why simply attacking at the expense of defending is a bad idea
There are many times when you will want to hold off from comitting an attack in favor of defending to determine the enemy intention or to draw the enemy further in
moron, the concept behind OP doesn't mean constant attacking at every level. Obviously not every waking second can be spent attacking at the tactical level. But operationally, the concept is constant tempo.
I know exactly which history books you've been reading.
>History has proven, if you attack harder and bigger, you will win.
someone should probably go back to the late 30s and tell the Nips
Full-spectrum dominance is literall just: fricking destroy them LMAO what will they do? Nothing!
Name a single instance where an attacker failed. It simply never happened, Attackers are winning until a superior counterattack happens, then the new attackers are winning. Of course, this says nothing of the logistics behind being able to attack.
>Name a single instance where an attacker failed. It simply never happened, Attackers are winning until a superior counterattack happens, then the new attackers are winning. Of course, this says nothing of the logistics behind being able to attack.
In real life the stronger party attacks, and the weaker one defends, until the roles are switched. You can't "attack harder" when you're weaker.
i was really annoyed at how terrible this board has been, even before the ukraine shit. but you made me happy with ghis thread OP, we need more trolls on this board to break up all the complaining and arguing
I General Lee have to agree with you.
(James Longstreet has connected)
Yes yes, let's just sit until we get sieged down into nothing. Longstreet was a dumb b***h.
I hate no effort frogposters, unless it’s me.
Indeed fellow anonymous chap! This folly war will be over by christmas when the kaiser signs the terms of surrender for Germany.
t.
Vamos!
Fortresses dominated warfare for like three thousand years.
There's a term for this in the USAF that escapes me, but it's basically to always maintain a momentum advantage against the enemy without giving them enough air to figure out a counter to the strategy.
OODA Loop
All offense all the time, let's go!
Nuke
frick attacking!
TURTLE CHADS WY@?
>History has proven, if you attack harder and bigger, you will win. Don't defend, just attack, if the enemy attacks, attack back but better. Never stop, just attack. War is about attacking. Just push.