I'm no historian, but it seems to me that many battles in history were won by superior firepower on one side. Or one side just being a lot better at it (more experienced or whatever). That what won the day was preparation prior to the battle, not necessarily actions taken during the battle itself.
However, I have been binge watching a bunch of youtube videos about various Roman battles, especially the civil war involving Caesar. When Caesar fought against Pompey, he was fighting against troops with similar backgrounds, training, weapons, etc. These battles were more like a chess match than I realized. They would sometimes maneuver armies for weeks trying to gain the tactical advantage before having a meaningful fight. One in particular involved each army trying to surround the other in a wall. One army built a wall that was 28km long, but Caesar's army was faster and was able to build one 32km long and turn the corner and cut them off from water supplies. That forced Pompey to fight sooner from a disadvantaged position (and lose).
What I find most interesting about this sort of thing, is it make me respect those guys intelligence more. I often think tactics of the past were naive (like wearing bright red coats, standing up in lines, etc.) But I think that if you were to put me in charge of Pompey's army, that Caesar would have kicked my ass worse than Pompey.
Anyway I found that damn interesting. Are there any other interesting examples of "chess matchy" battles from the past? Those interest me at the moment.
I'm no historian, but it seems to me that many battles in history were won by superior firepower on one side. Or one side just being a lot better at it (more experienced or whatever). That what won the day was preparation prior to the battle, not necessarily actions taken during the battle itself.
However, I have been binge watching a bunch of youtube videos about various Roman battles, especially the civil war involving Caesar. When Caesar fought against Pompey, he was fighting against troops with similar backgrounds, training, weapons, etc. These battles were more like a chess match than I realized. They would sometimes maneuver armies for weeks trying to gain the tactical advantage before having a meaningful fight. One in particular involved each army trying to surround the other in a wall. One army built a wall that was 28km long, but Caesar's army was faster and was able to build one 32km long and turn the corner and cut them off from water supplies. That forced Pompey to fight sooner from a disadvantaged position (and lose).
What I find most interesting about this sort of thing, is it make me respect those guys intelligence more. I often think tactics of the past were naive (like wearing bright red coats, standing up in lines, etc.) But I think that if you were to put me in charge of Pompey's army, that Caesar would have kicked my ass worse than Pompey.
Anyway I found that damn interesting. Are there any other interesting examples of "chess matchy" battles from the past? Those interest me at the moment.
Win by superior firepower/ better overall? Well then Agincourt shouldn't have ended the way its did.
Ceasar v Pompey : Lee v Grant - Overland Campaign ending in the Siege of Petersburg, 1864-1865.
Operation Desert Storm - 1991.
Warfare in general throughout history is wrought with examples of maneuver trying to gain tactical advantages.
Standing in lines was the best way to deliver the most impact using the weapons of the time.. It was also how they could best control the forces delivering said impact.
I'm no historian, but it seems to me that many battles in history were won by superior firepower on one side. Or one side just being a lot better at it (more experienced or whatever). That what won the day was preparation prior to the battle, not necessarily actions taken during the battle itself.
However, I have been binge watching a bunch of youtube videos about various Roman battles, especially the civil war involving Caesar. When Caesar fought against Pompey, he was fighting against troops with similar backgrounds, training, weapons, etc. These battles were more like a chess match than I realized. They would sometimes maneuver armies for weeks trying to gain the tactical advantage before having a meaningful fight. One in particular involved each army trying to surround the other in a wall. One army built a wall that was 28km long, but Caesar's army was faster and was able to build one 32km long and turn the corner and cut them off from water supplies. That forced Pompey to fight sooner from a disadvantaged position (and lose).
What I find most interesting about this sort of thing, is it make me respect those guys intelligence more. I often think tactics of the past were naive (like wearing bright red coats, standing up in lines, etc.) But I think that if you were to put me in charge of Pompey's army, that Caesar would have kicked my ass worse than Pompey.
Anyway I found that damn interesting. Are there any other interesting examples of "chess matchy" battles from the past? Those interest me at the moment.
Win by superior firepower/ better overall? Well then Agincourt shouldn't have ended the way its did.
Ceasar v Pompey : Lee v Grant - Overland Campaign ending in the Siege of Petersburg, 1864-1865.
Operation Desert Storm - 1991.
Warfare in general throughout history is wrought with examples of maneuver trying to gain tactical advantages.
Standing in lines was the best way to deliver the most impact using the weapons of the time.. It was also how they could best control the forces delivering said impact.
So, I'll look up the other ones, but this one:
Quote:
Operation Desert Storm - 1991.
Was a huge difference in firepower and capability. Not a "fair" fight by any stretch.
I'm no historian, but it seems to me that many battles in history were won by superior firepower on one side. Or one side just being a lot better at it (more experienced or whatever). That what won the day was preparation prior to the battle, not necessarily actions taken during the battle itself.
However, I have been binge watching a bunch of youtube videos about various Roman battles, especially the civil war involving Caesar. When Caesar fought against Pompey, he was fighting against troops with similar backgrounds, training, weapons, etc. These battles were more like a chess match than I realized. They would sometimes maneuver armies for weeks trying to gain the tactical advantage before having a meaningful fight. One in particular involved each army trying to surround the other in a wall. One army built a wall that was 28km long, but Caesar's army was faster and was able to build one 32km long and turn the corner and cut them off from water supplies. That forced Pompey to fight sooner from a disadvantaged position (and lose).
What I find most interesting about this sort of thing, is it make me respect those guys intelligence more. I often think tactics of the past were naive (like wearing bright red coats, standing up in lines, etc.) But I think that if you were to put me in charge of Pompey's army, that Caesar would have kicked my ass worse than Pompey.
Anyway I found that damn interesting. Are there any other interesting examples of "chess matchy" battles from the past? Those interest me at the moment.
Win by superior firepower/ better overall? Well then Agincourt shouldn't have ended the way its did.
Ceasar v Pompey : Lee v Grant - Overland Campaign ending in the Siege of Petersburg, 1864-1865.
Operation Desert Storm - 1991.
Warfare in general throughout history is wrought with examples of maneuver trying to gain tactical advantages.
Standing in lines was the best way to deliver the most impact using the weapons of the time.. It was also how they could best control the forces delivering said impact.
So, I'll look up the other ones, but this one:
Quote:
Operation Desert Storm - 1991.
Was a huge difference in firepower and capability. Not a "fair" fight by any stretch.
Not really.. The American Army was under no illusions about what they thought was going to happen. They were expecting 30% casualties.
Not "fair" because the Iragi's(Pompey) were out maneuvered. They had pretty much written off the desert in front of VII Corps (Ceasar) as unnavigable and thus left it undefended. They had no idea about the use of GPS. To fight "fair' is a true travesty.
The Iraqis adhered to Soviet doctrine and had their asses handed to them by true Blitzkrieg tactics developed by Guderian, refined to the fullest by Rommel and implemented by Schwarzkopf. (Battle of 73 Easting).
I'm no historian, but it seems to me that many battles in history were won by superior firepower on one side. Or one side just being a lot better at it (more experienced or whatever). That what won the day was preparation prior to the battle, not necessarily actions taken during the battle itself.
However, I have been binge watching a bunch of youtube videos about various Roman battles, especially the civil war involving Caesar. When Caesar fought against Pompey, he was fighting against troops with similar backgrounds, training, weapons, etc. These battles were more like a chess match than I realized. They would sometimes maneuver armies for weeks trying to gain the tactical advantage before having a meaningful fight. One in particular involved each army trying to surround the other in a wall. One army built a wall that was 28km long, but Caesar's army was faster and was able to build one 32km long and turn the corner and cut them off from water supplies. That forced Pompey to fight sooner from a disadvantaged position (and lose).
What I find most interesting about this sort of thing, is it make me respect those guys intelligence more. I often think tactics of the past were naive (like wearing bright red coats, standing up in lines, etc.) But I think that if you were to put me in charge of Pompey's army, that Caesar would have kicked my ass worse than Pompey.
Anyway I found that damn interesting. Are there any other interesting examples of "chess matchy" battles from the past? Those interest me at the moment.
Win by superior firepower/ better overall? Well then Agincourt shouldn't have ended the way its did.
Ceasar v Pompey : Lee v Grant - Overland Campaign ending in the Siege of Petersburg, 1864-1865.
Operation Desert Storm - 1991.
Warfare in general throughout history is wrought with examples of maneuver trying to gain tactical advantages.
Standing in lines was the best way to deliver the most impact using the weapons of the time.. It was also how they could best control the forces delivering said impact.
So, I'll look up the other ones, but this one:
Quote:
Operation Desert Storm - 1991.
Was a huge difference in firepower and capability. Not a "fair" fight by any stretch.
Not really.. The American Army was under no illusions about what they thought was going to happen. They were expecting 30% casualties.
Not "fair" because the Iragi's(Pompey) were out maneuvered. They had pretty much written off the desert in front of VII Corps (Ceasar) as unnavigable and thus left it undefended. They had no idea about the use of GPS. To fight "fair' is a true travesty.
The Iraqis adhered to Soviet doctrine and had their asses handed to them by true Blitzkrieg tactics developed by Guderian, refined to the fullest by Rommel and implemented by Schwarzkopf. (Battle of 73 Easting).
Seems to me that having stealth fighters and other advanced aircraft that earned absolute air superiority and pummeled the enemy for over a month straight before the ground war started along with the fact that our tanks and other weapons outclassed theirs in every way probably had more to do it than any ground maneuverings.
(In short... if we swap places but used our same technology, we still would have crushed them)
if you're interested in him, perhaps the classic study of Napoleon's wars is "The Campaigns of Napoleon" by Chandler, as he not only dissects the battles but breaks down Naploleon's approach to warfare.
I'm no historian, but it seems to me that many battles in history were won by superior firepower on one side. Or one side just being a lot better at it (more experienced or whatever). That what won the day was preparation prior to the battle, not necessarily actions taken during the battle itself.
However, I have been binge watching a bunch of youtube videos about various Roman battles, especially the civil war involving Caesar. When Caesar fought against Pompey, he was fighting against troops with similar backgrounds, training, weapons, etc. These battles were more like a chess match than I realized. They would sometimes maneuver armies for weeks trying to gain the tactical advantage before having a meaningful fight. One in particular involved each army trying to surround the other in a wall. One army built a wall that was 28km long, but Caesar's army was faster and was able to build one 32km long and turn the corner and cut them off from water supplies. That forced Pompey to fight sooner from a disadvantaged position (and lose).
What I find most interesting about this sort of thing, is it make me respect those guys intelligence more. I often think tactics of the past were naive (like wearing bright red coats, standing up in lines, etc.) But I think that if you were to put me in charge of Pompey's army, that Caesar would have kicked my ass worse than Pompey.
Anyway I found that damn interesting. Are there any other interesting examples of "chess matchy" battles from the past? Those interest me at the moment.
Win by superior firepower/ better overall? Well then Agincourt shouldn't have ended the way its did.
Ceasar v Pompey : Lee v Grant - Overland Campaign ending in the Siege of Petersburg, 1864-1865.
Operation Desert Storm - 1991.
Warfare in general throughout history is wrought with examples of maneuver trying to gain tactical advantages.
Standing in lines was the best way to deliver the most impact using the weapons of the time.. It was also how they could best control the forces delivering said impact.
So, I'll look up the other ones, but this one:
Quote:
Operation Desert Storm - 1991.
Was a huge difference in firepower and capability. Not a "fair" fight by any stretch.
Not really.. The American Army was under no illusions about what they thought was going to happen. They were expecting 30% casualties.
Not "fair" because the Iragi's(Pompey) were out maneuvered. They had pretty much written off the desert in front of VII Corps (Ceasar) as unnavigable and thus left it undefended. They had no idea about the use of GPS. To fight "fair' is a true travesty.
The Iraqis adhered to Soviet doctrine and had their asses handed to them by true Blitzkrieg tactics developed by Guderian, refined to the fullest by Rommel and implemented by Schwarzkopf. (Battle of 73 Easting).
Seems to me that having stealth fighters and other advanced aircraft that earned absolute air superiority and pummeled the enemy for over a month straight before the ground war started along with the fact that our tanks and other weapons outclassed theirs in every way probably had more to do it than any ground maneuverings.
(In short... if we swap places but used our same technology, we still would have crushed them)
There are multiple factors at play in Desert Storm not the least of which is Desert Shield. Saddam allowed a coalition to form, deploy and rehearse for six months before the ground war began. Heck, the 1st Cavalry Division upgraded from M1s to M1A1s in the process. I can't think of another conflict in history where one side sat there and allowed the other side to build up their forces unmolested for six months.
Wonder weapons help for sure but, the will of the enemy to fight, supply lines, popular support amongst those funding the war - whether that be with monies, or with babies. (a nod to one of the lyrics in Iron Maiden's "Two Minutes to Midnight" - "we oil the jaws of the war machine and feed it with our babies").
The mass surrender of the Iraqi troops was also unprecedented. I had a guy in my Armor School class who had been a Military Policeman in the Pennsylvania National Guard. He said he was scared out of his mind being assigned to guard 700+ Iraqi surrenders encircled by concertina wire knowing that he only had 210 rounds for his M-16. He couldn't possibly shoot them all even if he had to.
Now reverse the situation, and if it had been the US + Coalition forces defending Saudi Arabia from an attacking Iraqi Army, yes, no doubt we would have prevailed because you expect the defender to have a 3:1 advantage anyway.
But make no mistake, there was absolutely no expectation that the Iraqis would go lightly.
Plus, all of our war weapons which were designed to fight the Soviets in Central Europe had by and large not been battle tested and especially not against what we expected to be competent troops who were well armed with good Soviet gear. Remember that the Iraqis had just fought Iran less than a decade earlier. These were troops who had seen combat.
There were some Vietnam Veterans among the senior American ranks but the vast majority of the soldiers, Marines, sailors, etc. had never seen combat. And that's just the Americans. Remember we had Brits, French, Saudis, Egyptians, etc. all on our side. Just the supply logistics alone were a miracle.
Now with respect to the battle plan that was executed, I grew up in a little town on the East Coast of Saudi Arabia. One of the biggest fears you can have is getting lost in the desert. Saddam Hussein believed that the desert would provide a natural defense and that it would be impossible for the Coalition forces to attack through the desert. With respect to the OP's premise regarding Chess. Saddam made the wrong move and his arrogance allowed his opponent to execute their plan flawlessly.
Saddam allowed a coalition to form, deploy and rehearse for six months before the ground war began.
He did, but he was also desperately trying to get us to negotiate a peace during that time. We refused.
When I was a kid - probably 1982, they put in big concrete "tank traps" around the petrochemical plant my dad was building. I was probably in 7th Grade so I had a Junior High level understanding of military tactics and firmly believed that air power was the modern game. Who would waste their time trying to invade Saudi Arabia in a tank? How would they even get it there in the first place?
Air strikes seemed more probable as the Iran/Iraq war heating up and those a-holes kept blowing up oil tankers and their oil kept washing up on my beach which really pissed me off. Not from some environmental greenie standpoint, but from the perspective of a guy who likes to got to the beach and doesn't like to get his swimsuit covered in tar.
I think it was about 1983 when we got a new Hawk missile battery installation maybe 2 miles from my house. My dad's theory was that we were just selling our old crap to the Saudis since he said those were the same kinds of air defence missiles they had when he was in the Army in West Germany 20 some years earlier.
Anyway, knowing what I know now and realising how little resistance there would have been, there was absolutely nothing to have stopped Saddam's Army from rolling right down the Abu Hadriya highway and they could have seized the Eastern Province Saudi oil fields within a day.
In hindsight, I think that by the early 80s, the Saudis viewed both the Iraqis and the Iranians as threats. They would have been right. After invading Kuwait on August 2nd, 1990, if Saddam would have sent his Army another 200 miles south, Operation Desert Storm would have been a very different war. So again, Saddam started it but it was also his to lose. Had he made the right chess moves, he could have grabbed another 10Mbpd on top of the 2Mbpd from Kuwait. Combine that with the 5Mbpd they're getting from Iraq today, against a global demand close to 100 Mbpd and boom - Saddam could have been in control of one-sixth of the world's oil supply.
The Texas Revolution - Runaway Scrape ending in the Battle of San Jacinto. Houston flat out refusing to fight as he kept out in front of the Mexican Army heading East. Then turning on a numerically superior, better trained and equipped army in a set piece battle.
Most if not all of the North African Campaign in WWII was very "chessy". Lots of set piece battles with maneuver to set up advantages and exploit weaknesses. El Alamein and Tobruk being the classic set piece battles.
As already stated, many times Napoleon out chess-matched his opponents with fewer men and decisive results, Austerlitz being the classic example.
The first thing that came to my mind was Cannae, which was also mentioned earlier.
Since I'm a Civil War guy I'll throw an obscure one that never gets the platitudes it should: Rosecrans' Tullahoma Campaign where he maneuvered Bragg out of central Tennessee and ended it by capturing Chattanooga at the loss of about 350 men grand total. Unfortunately for him the Chickamauga Campaign followed.
A well disciplined professional army using set piece tactics getting annihilated by another well disciplined army? Islandwana. Zulu Wars.
This happened, give or take a couple of years, to Custer with the same results as a violation of one of the principles of war. Don't split your forces in the field without superior knowledge of the forces of the enemy.
The person that is not willing to fight and die, if need be, for his country has no right to life.
Oh he knew exactly what he was up against and what was down in the valley. His ego got a lot of men killed that day.
I was surprised to learn that Custer had been in Oklahoma, I believe at the Wa****a, and had success dividing his command. So when he divided at Little Big Horn, he was fighting the last battle again...but it didn't work.
He attacked Black Kettle's Southern Cheyenne camp on the Wa****a River during at sun up on a cold snowy morning. Didn't matter if he split up his command or not. It was a peaceful village. He killed a bunch of women and kids.
It was Major Elliot that led a detachment of about 20 soldiers who broke off from the main attack and started to chase a group of men who had fled the camp. They ran into a large group of warriors who were coming from other camps in the area and summarily slaughtered. Because the other camps were roused, Custer left Black Kettles camp before finding out about the where-abouts of Elliott. That is what chapped his subordinates' asses.
I don't recall all the ins and outs. I didn't think that the Cavalry losses were many at all, and they kicked the Indians' butt. However, the counter argument is that it was a small camp of non-combatants, so it was hardly the glorious victory Custer claimed
Seems like Hannibal did a lot of what you're asking for.
Also, not exactly what you're asking for, but if you want to appreciate the intelligence of ancient peoples, read the War of the Jews by Josephus. It's not all about military strategy, but its depiction of the thinking of these people I found fascinating. Also, from a military aspect the tactics of city sieges and the detailed description of the battering ram siege tower was also fascinating.
Could you also argue loosely that the war in the Atlantic was a chess match kinda thing between the kreigsmarine u boats and the Atlantic convoy system? US trying to get tons of supplies to keep brits in the war and Germany trying to knock the out before it was too drawn out of a war.
Or also the War in the Pacific ....the carrier warfare (that was still a novel thought) that was very hide and seek in the pacific between the American and Japanese carriers.
Saddam allowed a coalition to form, deploy and rehearse for six months before the ground war began.
He did, but he was also desperately trying to get us to negotiate a peace during that time. We refused.
When I was a kid - probably 1982, they put in big concrete "tank traps" around the petrochemical plant my dad was building. I was probably in 7th Grade so I had a Junior High level understanding of military tactics and firmly believed that air power was the modern game. Who would waste their time trying to invade Saudi Arabia in a tank? How would they even get it there in the first place?
Air strikes seemed more probable as the Iran/Iraq war heating up and those a-holes kept blowing up oil tankers and their oil kept washing up on my beach which really pissed me off. Not from some environmental greenie standpoint, but from the perspective of a guy who likes to got to the beach and doesn't like to get his swimsuit covered in tar.
I think it was about 1983 when we got a new Hawk missile battery installation maybe 2 miles from my house. My dad's theory was that we were just selling our old crap to the Saudis since he said those were the same kinds of air defence missiles they had when he was in the Army in West Germany 20 some years earlier.
Anyway, knowing what I know now and realising how little resistance there would have been, there was absolutely nothing to have stopped Saddam's Army from rolling right down the Abu Hadriya highway and they could have seized the Eastern Province Saudi oil fields within a day.
In hindsight, I think that by the early 80s, the Saudis viewed both the Iraqis and the Iranians as threats. They would have been right. After invading Kuwait on August 2nd, 1990, if Saddam would have sent his Army another 200 miles south, Operation Desert Storm would have been a very different war. So again, Saddam started it but it was also his to lose. Had he made the right chess moves, he could have grabbed another 10Mbpd on top of the 2Mbpd from Kuwait. Combine that with the 5Mbpd they're getting from Iraq today, against a global demand close to 100 Mbpd and boom - Saddam could have been in control of one-sixth of the world's oil supply.
A very good friend of mine was a Security Policeman in the Air Force. His unit was deployed to Dhahran to protect the first F-15s that were stationed there. He told me that at that point in the "war" there was nothing between him and his Humvee and an Iraqi T-72 but sand and was that way for several months.
