What are some examples of battles being won on strategy alone? Despite being outnumbered and outgunned and the enemy having better technology? Is military science just a meme?
What are some examples of battles being won on strategy alone?
What are some examples of battles being won on strategy alone? Despite being outnumbered and outgunned and the enemy having better technology? Is military science just a meme?
Cannae.
>Cannae
Would have been insane to witness this, the fact that the battle went into the afternoon and evening was very rare for the time
His remake at Tannemberg.
Greatest, feat of strategy in the history of warefare. Hannibal holding that center in a feigned route, is absolutely insane. Most feigned retreats if you arent a horse archer army just become real routes.
It was much more impressive than a feigned retreat. His center continued facing forward and fighting, but they slowly and purposefully gave ground. This would have been hard enough on its own, but Hannibal made it even harder on himself by putting Gauls and Spaniards in the center. Hannibal and Mago were in the center with them, but these were still largely mercenaries who he probably couldn't communicate with very well (perhaps he could have with the Spaniards considering his history there, but I doubt it with the Gauls).
Some men truly are built different.
It had to be his worst troops for it to work.
He needed his Lybians 1 not completely exhausted, and 2 they wouldnt make a believable show of it
Battle of gaugamela
You mean the opposite?
Alexander had the superior army.
In what fricking way did Alexander had a superior army
Alexander's army was all Macedonian and Helens. D'ARIUS had a HELLA diverse army, which as we all know is the key to military success
Fall of Singapore
The british army was absolute garbage, after having its ass kicked down the whole penninsula. The japanese army was vastly superior by this stage. The fall of singapore was an example of a vastly materially superior force, crushing a lower moral, non peer force.
The Japanese had more combat units. Some of the British battalions weren't even armed.
Battle of Marathon is the classical example.
but it often happens in smaller scale like e.g.
Battle of Brownstown
Marathon was higher quality troops though. OP asked for outnumbered and outgunned. If there's anything the Greco-Persian was showed, it's that heavy infantry were a out of context problem for Persia.
Marathon was a large combined arms force getting liquefied by heavy infantry on a narrow front. Athens only won because the Persians were trapped with no maneuvering room.
Chancellorsville
Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt. The French had more knights than longbowmen, you could be forgiven for thinking that longbowmen were the superior troop to knights.
Archers were kinda OP for the time thoughever, as by the end of the 100 years war every side preferred bows over knights (even the French eventually learned their lesson).
I remember one of the battles between Burgundy and England was just both sides standing there for days, cause nobody dared to make a first move against the archers everyone overinvested in.
It took until patch 1.453 for the devs to introduce an actual counter with cannons
It wasn't much of a battle but since you have a picture of the ACW up I'd throw in the Tullahoma Campaign. There wasn't much in the way of actual fighting but William Rosecran's Army of the Cumberland refitted a lot of their cavalry and an infantry brigade larping as mounted infantry (John T Wilder's Lightning Brigade, who found a mishmash of carthorses and mules to ride and carried hatchets in lieu of sabers) and performed a series of rapid outflanking maneuvers on the Confederate right. The Confederates were entrenched in a strong defensive position in the foothills of the Appalachians and Rosecrans used his numerically superior infantry to demonstrate toward the open ground near Shelbyville on the Confederate left (which he may have known Bragg assumed he would attack), before launching his cavalry toward the mountains of the Highland Rim on the Confederate right. They were able to seize Hoover and Liberty Gap despite Wheeler's cavalry (and the Lightning Brigade killed or wounded a quarter of Bushrod Johnson's brigade when they tried to counter attack), forcing Bragg to fallback from the Shelbyville position to his headquarters at Tullahoma but by the time he did, Rosecrans' main body had crossed the Duck River and taken Manchester before pushing on towards Hillsboro. The Army of the Cumberland was already curling around behind the Confederates and were on the verge of trapping them against the Cumberland range and were only being held up by the rain, forcing the Army of the Tennessee to flee back to Chattanooga which they would be forced to concede without a fight. This would provoke the CSA to transfer Longstreet's Corps West leading to the Battle of Chickamauga and the absolute meme that was the Battle of Missionary Ridge (probably the funniest battle in American history).
Although I feel I should mention, that for those who don't know Braxton Bragg was a fairly competent soldier but a colossal prick who lacked the force of personality to dominate or run over the people who hated him, and it was well known that he would've been out of a job if not for his friendship with Jefferson Davis. His various commands were rife with vicious internal feuding (and were not helped by the fact that just before the Tullahoma Campaign the charismatic Earl Van Dorn seduced a guys wife and got shot for it which due to politics lead to 4,000 troopers being transferred back to Mississippi, evening the odds between the Confederate and Union Cavalry (Union: 12,000 +1,500 from the Lightning Brigade v 9,000 under Wheeler and 4,100 under Forrest)) especially during this campaign. He was under a lot of fire for his poor performance during the Perryville/Stones River campaign where his subordinates were so convinced they lost because of him they were actively trying to get him removed, but Davis wasn't willing to slap his friend in the face and tried to do it politely by sending Joe Johnston to conduct an inspection with the idea being he would find a problem and remove Bragg. But Johnston was unaware of just how bad the interpersonal rot was and when he found a surly army that was still an organized, well trained, well-equipped (or as well-equipped as the CSA could expect, he wrote a favorable report tacitly endorsing Bragg's command which caused tempers to explode. For example Hardee's Corps was in the way of Rosecrans' advance from the Hoover Gap but he was so convinced that Bragg was an idiot and had such little faith in his ability that instead of moving South-East to block an attack on Manchester, he withdrew South-West to consolidate around Wartrace letting the Army of the Cumberland cross the Duck River uncontested.
yankees werent outnumbered or outgunned or undersupplied. any of forrests battles would be better examples
Both sides during the war had enormous trouble digging entrenched enemies out of their positions, and the Tullahoma Campaign saw a sizeable Confederate force (45,000 vs AoCs 50,000, rising to 60,000) completely unhinged by an expertly planned and competently executed maneuver that forced the Confederates to flee in disorder over a hundred miles and abandon the state of Tennessee. Forrest's operations while on an individual level were flashy and on occasion impressive, also did very little to impact the broader course of the war and he was never able to stop the Union Army once it had fully committed to an operation. If you want to name decisive campaigns of the war for people to study then you really should look at
1: The Vicksburg Campaign
2: Sherman's March to the Sea
3: Lee during the Seven Days
4: The Tullahoma Campaign
5: Jackson's Valley Campaign
based knower
Six days campaign (Napoleon)
Manassas maybe
Strategy is part of military science. Also, strategists have long known the concept of "friction" and modeled this in their simulations by using dice. Hence, how wargaming had its origins.
>Also, strategists have long known the concept of "friction" and modeled this in their simulations by using dice. Hence, how wargaming had its origins.
Strategists have dice in their simulation because of uncertainty and chance, not friction.
uncertainty and chance are part of friction
Battle of Cowpens
Daniel Morganbtfo of Banastre Tarleton by simply doing exactly what he expected Tarleton to do. Tarleton despised milita and nothing gave him a harder stiffy than running down rustics. I mean Jesus Christ he did it time and time again and the militias always broke at the first sign of calvary or bayonet charge. Morgan had milita form the center and fire 2 shots before retreating. Tarleton took the bait and rushed with a full charge. Morgan's more seasoned military trained men hidden put volleys into Tarleton's men then routed them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Detroit
Siege of Detroit, 2500 American regulars surrender the fort to 700 British and Canadians because they pretended they had lots of Indians with them.
ITT: people that can't differentiate between strategy and tactic
He's asking for specific battles won against the odds, that pretty much has to be tactical. if you want to talk strategy we'd have to discuss whole campaigns or wars.
In the spirit of answering that half of OP's flawed question, I offer the Chacos War. Paraguay prevailed despite a smaller economic base, smaller army, and inferior armaments by a campaign of aggressive maneuver and encirclement, sustained thanks to their soldier's lighter logistical burdens and more efficient railroad lines backing them.
In one amusing - perhaps now familiar - incident that exemplifies the situation, Bolivian armor was defeated with cavalry dismounts and the captured tanks turned against their owners in such number the Bolivians were forced to purchase Solothurn anti-tank rifles to halt them (Paraguay owned no tanks).
Coral Sea.
Japs brought a few extra ships in each category than the Americans, and far more submarines. I'm not a total ship nerd so I can't tell you who actually had the advantage there. But in the air at least, the only plane that's clearly better are the American dive bombers.
It's even, per the OP's request, a strategic victory rather than a tactical one.
Task Force Taffy 3
>Flying in for an even closer look, Brooks reported, "I can see pagoda masts. I see the biggest meatball flag on the biggest battleship I ever saw!" Yamato alone displaced as much as all units of Taffy 3 combined.
>At 07:00, Commander Ernest E. Evans of the destroyer Johnston, responded to incoming shell fire bracketing carriers of the group he was escorting by laying down a protective smokescreen and zigzagging. At about 07:10, Gunnery Officer Robert Hagen began firing at the closest attackers, then 8.9 nmi (10 mi; 16 km) away, and registered several hits on the leading heavy cruisers. The Japanese targeted Johnston and soon shell splashes were bracketing the destroyer. In response and without consulting with his commanders, Evans ordered Johnston to "flank speed, full left rudder";[22] Johnston, still making smoke and zigzagging, accelerated at maximum speed towards the Japanese.
>The effect of Johnston's attack was to generate confusion in the minds of the Japanese commanders, who thought they were being engaged by American cruisers. Evans then reversed course and, under cover of his smokescreen, opened the range between his ship and the enemy.
>During the battle, Evans engaged in several duels with much larger Japanese opponents. At 08:20, emerging through smoke and rain squalls, Johnston was confronted by a 36,600-ton Kongō-class battleship. Johnston fired at least 40 rounds, with over 15 hits on the battleship's superstructure observed. Johnston reversed course and disappeared in the smoke, avoiding Haruna's 14 in (356 mm) return fire. At 08:26 and again at 08:34, Thomas requested an attack on the heavy cruisers to the east of the carriers.[31] Responding at 08:30, Johnston bore down on a huge cruiser firing at the helpless Gambier Bay, then closed to 3.0 nmi (3.4 mi; 5.5 km) and fired for ten minutes at a heavier and better-armed opponent, possibly Haguro, scoring numerous hits.
>At 08:40, a more pressing target appeared astern: seven Japanese destroyers in two columns, closing to attack the carriers. Reversing course to intercept, Evans attempted to pass in front of the formation, crossing the "T" (a classic naval maneuver to limit the enemy ships' firepower).
>Evans ordered Johnston's guns to fire on the Japanese destroyers, who returned fire striking Johnston several times.
>From as close as 3.5 nmi (4.0 mi; 6.4 km), Hagen fired and scored a dozen hits on the destroyer leader before it veered off, then shifted fire to the next destroyer in line, scoring five hits before it too turned away. Amazingly, the entire squadron turned west to avoid Johnston's fire.
>Johnston continued to take hits from the Japanese, which knocked out the number one gun mount, killing many men. By 09:20, forced from the bridge by exploding ammunition, Evans commanded the ship from the stern by shouting orders down to men manually operating the rudder.
>Johnston was hit so many times that one survivor recalled "they couldn't patch holes fast enough to keep her afloat."
>At 09:45, Evans finally gave the order to abandon ship. Johnston sank 25 minutes later with 186 of her crew. Evans abandoned ship with his crew, but was never seen again. He was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. As the Japanese destroyer Yukikaze cruised slowly nearby, Robert Billie and several other crewmen saw her captain salute the sinking Johnston.
that was less strategy and more absolute fricking insanity and luck.
Halsey was genuinely one of the worst US Admirals of the entire war it's lucky he was unwell at Midway and without Taffy 3 and a lot of luck with the nips turning around afterwards that engagement would have been a slaughter. Halsey was too aggressive, too obsessed with personal glory and too single-minded to be promoted to flag rank and he even lost to a typhoon twice in the same fricking war. That said he does get credit for helping Spruance get command roles and that man was exceptional.
He's not quite bad enough to be called the Mark Clark of the seas but it's close.
I've never once thought of the Empire of Japan flag as a giant meatball before, that was hilarious.
Pretty well known but the assault on brecourt manor is considered a pretty good example of how to use an undermanned element to take a well-manned and dug in position. IIRC Winters almost got the medal of honor for it but due to some moronic division policy only one could be awarded per brigade or something and some other officer got it for a different ballsy move at a bridge or something
Hue City. NVA massively outnumbered the defenders but quick marine responses kept them from taking the city. Shout out to the ARVN too, they actually had good troops there. And whoever was holding the prison held out surprisingly long against the attackers.
>technology difference
Not really. Constant cloud cover prevented air support and whatever advantage the marines had from some M48s was neutered by plentiful B-40s and being in a city.
Khe Sanh probably also qualifies, although if you want to argue it was a purely logistical fight I won't argue.
Guys I'm going to be real with you: You're making it sound more and more like superior training/combat experience matters a lot more than strategy.
I think you're proving OP's point that military science is a meme.
>I think you're proving OP's point that military science is a meme.
Whoa, military science presupposes that all troops are of identical quality irrespective of training, fatigue, morale and leadership? That's wild. You should correct them. You're a fricking genius anon.
There are a few posts where this is not the case. It's just that people are just going to post battles where their favorite side won irrespective of whether or not they were the underdog. In fact, for them, if they weren't the underdog, even better.
This entire thread is moronic because homosexuals keep naming battles won by tactics. If it's won by something you did during the battle it's not due to strategy by definition.
that's because OP is a homosexual who said "strategy" when he means "tactics"
this
>"Guys guys I'm so much smarter than you!"
>smugly tells everyone things they already know
What seems like a huge revelation to you is common knowledge to the rest of us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Red_Cliffs
this whole shit overall
coalition of a lesser force had to deal with a bigger one using terrain, weather, and trap to shit on Cao Cao before nearly wiping his army
The Mexican Invasion of America 1960-2020 (decisive Mexican victory)
Islandlwana
The zulus weren't exactly outnumbered but they were technologically outmatched to an absurd degree (as would be demonstrated at Rorkes drift soon afterward). They won Islandlwana and a handful of other engagements through superior positioning and mobility which allowed them to rapidly overrun British units caught in the open
Cynoscephalae, 197 bc. Roman-led coalition broke the back of the Greek empire by using flexible formations and forcing a battle on uneven, boulder-strewn ground that made the Greek phalanxes break formation. Romans got inside the phalanx blocks, slaughtered the hoplites who were poorly equipped to fight hand-to-hand. Both armies were comparable in size, around 26000 men on each side. Greeks lost somewhere arpund 8000 killed and 5000 captured. Romans lost 750-1000 men. Greece never recovered its military superiority, and was a Roman vassal for the next 1000 years. The ancients did note that "Rome, conquering, was herself conquered", referring to the subsequent Hellenization of Roman culture, culminating in the adoption of Greek as the official language of the empire in 700AD.
You probably meant tactics, because strategy would be your plan and resources spent on the war.
A battle won on strategy alone would be the battle of Thermopylae because the Greeks only brought a handful of soldiers, while the Persians brought a ton.
That, and any other battle where one side could just straight up outnumber the other one.