Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alamoes]

((They're not actually dead. They just ran away.))

Most of your army is dead.  Sorry, but you have 40,000 out of the 180 you started with.  A 78% casualty rate is terrible, even though most of it is due to desertion. 

[Rolepgeek]

Especially considering that a 20% casualty rate was considered horrible losses. Most people retreat at that point...

[alamoes]

About 60% of his casualties were from men surrendering from being surrounded by the master, Napoleon.  The rest died or deserted.  He really was that good. 

One of Napoleon's many tactics was to have his troops forage around the enemy army and envelope it.  This would force the troops to either fight for their life, or surrender.  The Austrians chose to surrender.  The rest of their army ran away. 

[Brood]

(( Cowards, we Prussians would fight to the death.... preferably his. ))

[Rolepgeek]

Yeah...there's a big issue with that plan.

Men who fight for their lives? They fight a lot harder than those who have a place to retreat.

Plus, those aren't the only options. With his troops dispersed to surround like that, if the bulk of the army makes a push, they'd break through rather easily.

[Brood]

(( Men bad idea, they'd break through but they'd be cut to shreds by the forces closing from the flanks and rear, the French men only needed to hold for about 1 minute and the entire force would fall on them.

Thats not strictly true either, they fight as best they can but thats all, a disciplined enemy does not care if he has a place to retreat because he will not retreat )) ))

[Rolepgeek]

Sun Tzu Art of War says that's completely wrong.

An intelligent foe makes sure he has somewhere to fall back to in case the battle is not going well. In fact, the only enemies that don't retreat are crazed or frenzied ones, ones typically thought of as undisciplined. "No retreat, no surrender" sure sounds nice, but it's a pretty poor plan. People don't want to die. The ones attacking are at risk of dying if they continue to fight. The ones defending are at risk of dying if they don't.

Finally, they would most certainly not be cut to shreds if the commander had any sense. First of all, it's hard to reload a musket while you're chasing after the enemy. Second of all, rearguard actions can help with that. Third of all, again, the fact that he'd have to disperse his troops means that they would be able to break through with a charge. A minute for the entire force to fall on them? No. The entire force had already been engaging them.

It's a good plan, as surrounding the enemy is always good, flanking and such, but it not only risks you hitting your own forces with artillery fire or battles with large amounts of troops but little space, but it means they'll fight to the death, rather than rout, which is extremely dangerous to your own men. Inflicting 100% casualties comes with a hefty price.

When the foe surrenders though, it would be effective. As we saw with Austria.

[Brood]

(( If the surrounding force is led by a good commander your doomed, you can't fight a rearguard action on 3 sides at once unless you have far superior numbers otherwise they'll chew you to pieces even if you break through.

Sun Tzu got it wrong.
The British red coats were the most feared military force in the world purely because they did not follow that one teaching and they fought to the death, the enemy almost always broke first.

Besides I have a firm belief that if you keep faith you can always win, the only hopeless fight is the one you surrender.))

[Deny]

Sun Tzu also says that If the men don't have a place to reatreat, they will fight as hard as they can, look it up, if you don't have any other option, making sure you have no retreat is the best way to maximise your troops efficiency, and you see it at D-day, the men there had no way to get out, so they fought some of the hardest fighting in the war

[GreatWyrmGold]

Look, it's a good strategy if the enemy is going to surrender and bad if they're not. A bit more complex than that, but that's the gist of it.

[Brood]

(( Depends on the enemy, numbers, terrain, who you are.
It's a tactic but thats all it is, it's not good or bad it all comes down to the situation. ))

[alamoes]

They surrendered.  They did put up a really good fight until Napoleon finally surrounded them. 

[Brood]

Well now we see if they can do it a second time and crush an army with a 2-1 advantage.
I'm personally betting on Napoleon coming out of this fight on top.

[intelligentmoron]

2:1?

Napoleon has faced those odds before, but it was always a lack of training or strategic failure on the enemies part which led to his victory.

Assuming cousin Russia's deployment isn't pants-on-head retarded they should win I believe.

[Brood]

I wouldn't be so sure.
Traits of the soldiers involved are taken into account in this and soldier to soldier the French are far superior to the Russians.
Superior enough that they have an equal chance of winning if the French tactics are good.