Role of Tactics in Warfare

Battle of Breitenfeld

>>1784289
>Has there ever been a battle in history where an army that was technologically disadvantaged like the aztecs, won against an army with superior tech?


How much of a technological disadvantage are you willing to consider before qualifying it?


>Or maybe an army with more manpower, lost to a much smaller army? Basically situations that are impossible by all means, but might've managed to miraculously happen anyway thanks to good tactics or the influence of a general?

That is much more frequent. From Agincourt to Carrhae to whatever that battle is called where Si Ren Fa kicked the shit out of the Ming (also might qualify for the tech disadvantage), that sort of thing is fairly frequent. Hannibal won quite a few of these, and Cannae is a classic for a reason. Half of the battles of the Greeks vs the Persians, or the post-Marian romans vs just about anyone, also would qualify, although you might want to disqualify them based on quality methods.

>Usually, the army with more resources or manpower is in the superior position, but are there any times where these were overturned?

Sure, lots of times.

Yes, this has happened more times than we could even possibly imagine. Why would you ask such a silly question? The sheer number of battles in human history means it's bound to have happened.

File: ss+(2016-10-05+at+07.26.42).png (24KB, 307x678px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 307x678px

>>1784319

File: Battle_of_Longwala.png (309KB, 412x1310px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 412x1310px

>>1784289
>Or maybe an army with more manpower, lost to a much smaller army? Basically situations that are impossible by all means, but might've managed to miraculously happen anyway thanks to good tactics or the influence of a general?

It happens quite often, pic related. Pakistan at the time had tremendous US foreign aid and free military gibs, and arguably had a technology advantage over India. America's best tanks, planes, and even the first submarines in the Indian Ocean (Indian was denied purchase from other countries under pressure from US).

However, they used retarded tactics like most Islamic countries. Eg., sending brigades without air support, not deploying air defenses, getting caught in terrain, letting themselves get baited and Alamo'd multiple times, etc.

File: isandlwana.png (122KB, 337x962px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 337x962px

Isandlwana was a one-off that was arguably won due more to British incompetence than Zulu ability, but it still qualifies.

What's interesting is that the Zulu King Cetshwayo was quite apprehensive about all-out war against the British and feared winning against them too decisively would spark a bigger conflict that he couldn't possibly hope to win. After the Zulus won Isandlwana he got very skittish and ordered his commanders not to go on an aggressive against the British Natal colony, which ultimately probably cost him the war, as he still hoped that the British would agree to a favourable peace if he showed restraint after Isandlwana.

>>1784289
>just about any battle involving Rhodesia
>winter war
>invasion of France

don't bother any more, there's shitloads of examples.

>>1784458
Rhodesians had more advanced weaponry and air support.

That is not really that impressive.

>>1784289
2nd Punic war?
I figure you must already know this and not count it or something

>>1784289
Finland in the Winter War.

Afgans against Russia and the USA

Vietnam

>>1785341
>Vietnam
Not really in a battle though. That was just their overall strategy.

>>1784289
The battle of Tuetoberg Forest.
Not a huge technological disparity, armor can only do so much against a massive ambush. Plus we have no idea how many germans there were, but if they took out three whole legions it's safe to assume roughly equal numbers.

File: operation eland_rhodesia.jpg (87KB, 392x990px)

87KB, 392x990px

>>1784877
>That is not really that impressive

I don't have much to offer on what you are actually asking, but the Aztecs lost because of disease and the spainish exploiting the political climate and rallying all the other native kingdoms against the aztecs, not due to their technological advantage.

File: 1451360496362.png (864KB, 1900x1364px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 1900x1364px

>>1784289
the entire might of the byzantine empire & sassanian empire aganist bunch of literal desert people

Siege of Güns

>small fort with less than 1k men
>against the main ottoman army aiming to take vienna

>>1784364
whew lad indeed

howtoeverythingwrong.jpeg

>The Pakistani commanders made several questionable decisions, including a failure of their strategic intelligence to foresee availability of Indian strike aircraft in the Longewala area, exercising operational mobility with little or no route reconnaissance, and conducting a tactical frontal assault with no engineer reconnaissance. This led to the Pakistani brigade group being left extremely vulnerable to air attack, vehicles becoming bogged in terrain not suitable for the movement of armoured vehicles as they tried to deploy off a single track, these being more susceptible to enemy fire by using external fuel storage in tactical combat, attempting to execute a night attack over unfamiliar terrain, and infantry being surprised by obstacles to troop movement causing confusion and stalling the attack during the crucial hours of darkness, when the assaulting infantry still had a measure of concealment from Indian small arms and infantry support weapon fire.

>>1785793
Religious zealot kinda easy to beat a bunch of paying the army.

>>1786385
I don't know why the grammar correct get worse now...

>>1784364
american tech wasn't necessarily superior.
The centurion that India used was easily a match for the pattons, and arguably the sabres were outclassed by the folland gnats.
in 1971, the tech disparity was even more lopsided because india now had access to mig 21s.

>>1784289
History is full of examples of these. Check out the Korean war.

>American army rolls into north Korea with tanks, towed artillery, trucks, heavy guns, tons of equipment and supplies, a massive air force

>Chinese army is nothing but men with old ass rifles and a few mortars

>Chinese army sneaks during the night (so the air patrols don't spot them) and hide during the day, sneaking through the bush so as to not use any roads and are able to completely surprise and ambush the Americans. On Christmas Eve.

America got BTFO for a long, long, long time. Finally the war ended in a stalemate, but there's no way the Chinese should have been that successful, even with their superior numbers, because they were extremely outgunned. It was their tactics that lead to their success.

File: 1457106858010.png (146KB, 314x496px)

146KB, 314x496px

Pretty much a victory.

>>1785793
weren't they fighting against Janissaries with pre-gunpowder weapons?

>>1786427
>Armistice

Did they run out of ammo?

>>1786434
I really don't get it. Just zerg rush everyone and end it all.

Well, at the battle of Yarmouk, Ibn Walid had between 15 and 20000 soldiers, Byzantines had between 20 and 100000, battle lasted for 6 days, first 5 days were kind of a stalemate, with Ibn Walids right and left flank both collapsing at one point, but on different days. Battle ended on the 6th day when Ibn Walid used some of his cavalry to lure Byzantine cavalry off the battlefield, pressed hardly Byzantine left flank collapsing it, and than used his remaining cavalry to charge Byzantines in the back. The Byzantines tried to organize what's left of their heavy cavalry for counterattack, but Ibn Walid's cavalry that first led Byzantine cavalry away came back, attacked them before they could organize and soon the entire Byzantine army routed. Basicaly loosing entire Syria right there. Byzantine army is considered to have been 2 or 3 times larger than Ibn Walid's.

>>1786427
shitaly never ceases to impress me.

>>1784289
>Usually, the army with more resources or manpower is in the superior position, but are there any times where these were overturned?
>>1784289
>Has there ever been a battle in history where an army that was technologically disadvantaged like the aztecs, won against an army with superior tech?

The Aztecs definetely had more ressources and manpower than the Spaniards. Your question is quite vague and badly structured, it's not like technological advantage and numerical disadvantage can't fall together or vice versa. I.e. Battle of Isandlwana in the British-Zulu wars, Battle of Carthage

here's an example of a completely outmatched opponent winning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Muret

>>1784289
Swedish army dominated armies up to ten times their size with use of their tactics and discipline.

>>1786500

And now they rather indulge in cuckolding. Funny how time goes, isn't it?

>>1785815
All failed sieges are smaller force defeating bigger force.

File: 1472783948915.gif (364KB, 1200x650px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1200x650px

>>1786456
States the importance of cavalry throughout history. When the crowd psychology of the carnage and chaos overwhelmes your discipline, and you succumb to emotional and physical exhaustion. Experience utter butchery, like Cannae.

>>1786547
yea, when main infantry force get's charged in the back by cavalry, while also engaging other infantry force, mass rout is often what follows, and since it is generally considered that only 5% of battle casualities occur during the hand to hand fighting, i can not even imagine the carnage that happens when an army routs and gets chased down by both infantry and cavalry.

>>1784289
After the conquest of the inca empire, the puppet emperor Manco Inca rebelled and took control of Ollantaytambo, fortified the place and deflected the urubamba river, reducing the effectiveness of the spanish cavalry, together with the extensive use of long spears (some of 6 meters long according to the spanish) allowed the Inca to win and stay there for a year until he went to Vicalbamba where his neo-inca state survived for about forty years.

>>1786453
Italians are prissy egotists they all drag their feet and hope the guy next to them gets selected to rush the entrnchment all the while the guy next to him gets shot thru the head then before the 1st guy even finishes the thought "least it wasnt me" he gets shot thru the head too

>>1784289
>Or maybe an army with more manpower, lost to a much smaller army? Basically situations that are impossible by all means, but might've managed to miraculously happen anyway thanks to good tactics or the influence of a general?
agincourt, crecy and poiters, and flodden

>>1784289
>Or maybe an army with more manpower, lost to a much smaller army?
Absolutely fucking loads. Why do you think they bothered sending people to lead attacks?

>>1784331
Following that logic the sheer number of batles in human history means there was a time when battle axes were useful.

And they weren't.

>>1788235
They have their uses. Naturally it's hard to look useful when the best weapon pre-modern man was a sharp stick.

>>1784289
>technologically disadvantaged like the aztecs, won against an army with superior tech?

Yes, cases were it was nearing that wide of a gap were the technologically disadvantaged side win are very rare. The edge gained by tech is a matter of degrees.

File: 1459053158720.png (233KB, 680x671px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 680x671px

>>1785793
>those numbers

Holy shit, what was it ? Cavalry charges ?

>>1784289
Look into the New Zealand land wars.
Not 100% sure but the trench warfare style of the moaris surprised the european soldiers.
Moaris had few guns and mainly used clubs.
Not even bows and arrows.
Its interesting shit.

>>1788604
It would have been terrifying to face maoris in combat. Watching their haka is scary enough

The great emu war

File: IMG_4923.png (91KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 640x1136px

>>1788978

Siege of Cartagena by the British. They get too cocky and get rekt.

>>1784289
>"Conquistador"
>Holding a bloody flintlock pistol

>>1785793
False numbers the eastern roman empire could never of mustered those numbers. Muslim tradition teaches it like
allah ukbar
we killed 100 plus thosand hurr durr
15 thousand11111 killed hurr durr glory to allah
Also, Wikipedia.

Texas?

>>1789148
>10,000 escaped
Where did they flee?
>inb4 China