Best Military Formations Of All Time Thread

A bunch of guys in a loose formation with guns

File: slide_38.jpg (87KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 960x720px

>>1220821
WWII battle of Atlantic convoy protection

File: us-navy-in-ww-ii-session-v-battle-for-the-atlantic-24-638.jpg (110KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 638x479px

>>1220957
>>1220821

>>1220821
what do they do when they lose men during combat, 256 is very precise number do they try to keep square shape ?

>>1220876
>in a loose formation

Which formation, deep throat?

Wedge? Squad column? Line?

>>1220821
Line and Column

Guess that about covers 90% of most pre-industrial formations. Well okay circle and triangle get a mention too.

>>1221051
You would place a bunch next to each other so the whole thing would resemble a line.

Why would the phalanx be the best of ALL TIME!? If you consider all the times it wouldn't work today, thus it is not the best of ALL TIME. Instead it was the best at a CERTAIN POINT in TIME. Ok?

>>1221141
>He doesn't know about the DXI Star Destroyer I-700 phalanx battle formation

It's like people haven't even read Plutarchianus account of the Terran - Neo vulcan Empire wars

>>1221141
Stop being pedantic.
OP obviously just wanted very good formations

>Post Military Formations that give their people an edge, that change the tide of battle, the course of wars, and/or the nature of war.

>>1221141
Autistic answer but you're right. Let us have our yellow journalism yeh?

---Of all time-- the usage is meant to be remembered for all time. The author was asking for a top 10 list or something yeh? You're talking about being obsolete which isn't the word usage here.

>>1221141
The Phalanx was pretty good formation later to be replaced, but it was a pretty good formation and the Greeks mastered it. It dominated the ancient world for a good few hundred years or so. And so the Phalanx had a good run. Later it was replaced by roman formation, which were better at turning and protecting flanks.

Phalanx was terrible at protecting flanks and a pain in the ass to change direction.

>>1220826
Imagine being on front line and your commander orders you to charge head on into that, how did people do it? Basically a suicidal act

>>1221231
That is why Alexander and Philip used combined arms and not just the Phalanx. This was neglected by the Hellenistic kingdoms though, which caused them all sorts of grief, in particular against Rome.

>>1221252
That is what your shield is for. They break easy. Once yours is broken, you goto short swords and hack the spears to bits.

>>1221231
The phalanx also didn't work too well on hilly terrain. Which was why the Manipular formation was devised.

>>1221321
Which was worse for the Phalanx Downhill or uphill?

File: ORD_Phalanx_CIWS_Firing_lg.jpg (105KB, 800x570px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 800x570px

>>1220821
>>1221231
OP, this phalanx is better when in formation with other ships.

>>1221252
they were undoubtably very brave people

>>1221231
I just can't understand how this
>>1220826
would ever be defeated by this
>>1220893

you just couldn't get at them

>>1221501
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_infantry_tactics#Roman_infantry_versus_the_Macedonian_phalanx

>use shield
>break spears
>win

File: schiltrom_by_xenos60[1].jpg (167KB, 900x598px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 900x598px

>>1220886
silly shit
schiltrom beats square formations any day of the week

>>1220893
Testudo is very overrated. I'm not saying it isn't good, but that people misunderstand it. It was literally just a formation used against missile attacks, they would never fight like that.
>>1221231
The Phalanx was more or less unbeatable from the front, when used with combined arms it was amazing. The Romans won because by then the Greeks had forgot about combined arms and just had one huge phalanx with a bit of cavalry so the Romans walked around it, also they tried to use it on hills.
Romans wouldn't have beaten Alexander.

>>1221608
Schiltrom was good against Calvary, it could be very mobile, though slow. It was developed against light and medium Calvary. By the time the Schiltrom was being developed in Germania, Normans were developing lance warfare.

>>1221620
So did the chariot become obsolete because of the Phalanx?

>>1220893
>>1221620
In Rome Total War, I don't know what to do with the Testudo, its good against ballista, scorpions and archers, and thats its.

>>1221252
>Imagine being on front line and your commander orders you to charge head on into that, how did people do it? Basically a suicidal act

That probably almost never happened, for exactly that reason. Ancient people weren't retarded. Only another phalanx would seek to fight a phalanx head on, and it wouldn't be a "charge," it would be a careful advance, at walking pace, holding tight formation and, you know, trying very hard not to get stabbed.

File: tercios en Nodlingen.jpg (210KB, 733x589px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 733x589px

spanish tercios

>>1221642
>So did the chariot become obsolete because of the Phalanx?
The Chariot was obsolete before the phalanx, it was obsolete when regular cavalry was invented basically.
>>1221647
Yes thats how it should be. Use it when you assault walls or when you are waiting while under missile file. It shouldnt stop scorpios and ballistas though those things would go right through it.

>>1221642
as far as i know there is not effective formation to defend from lancer's charge
the only thing able to make a difference is pikes but that's not about tactics but mostly a choice of weapon

>>1221141
>>1221231
>>1221198
How do you know that phalanx won't return to being hot shit some point far far in the future where we truly reach the pinnacle of warfare, never to be surpassed?
Check mate atheists.

>>1221509
Thank you kind stranger

>>1221252
As
>>1221651
said


The last scene of Alatriste shows how two Phalanxes advance on each other. It's set in the 17. century, but it conveys the gist of it.

https://youtu.be/CTYuYxmICGo?t=2m50s