is all there is to strategy and tactics pinning, fire and manouver? it seems to be the prime principle of it. pushing into a frontline without creating movement or the means for future movement is just pointless meatgrinding.
i look at history back a 2000 years and it still was about flanking and concentration of force. logistics is also important to support that manouver.
but as i said above if a war does not let you manouver what is the point? nothing is accomplished and the war goes on and on for years. wars need to be short and decisive, you need to drive deep and hit unexpected points in the frontline or at the enemy army.

america with new battle rifle overmatch everyone okay my brother no one can handle america they strong than ever now I kneel

>>63976863 (OP)
>is all there is to strategy and tactics pinning, fire and manouver?
no, there's also targeting specific vulnerabilities and disrupting or destroying enemy's ability to wage war at all. if you kill their commanders, gut their logistics, destroy their supplies or undermine their support you can win without even directly engaging with enemy troops.

it goes like this: crude, head-on attritional warfare < tactical superiority, maneuver and positional advantage < decapitatory warfare(for lack of a better term)

Fire without maneuver is wasted
Maneuver without fire is suicidal

>>63976863 (OP)
>is all there is to strategy and tactics pinning, fire and manouver?
yes
but strategy and tactics include tons of detail within each of those categories and in different situations

in fact, all strategies and tactics except for
>>63976931
>crude, head-on attritional warfare
are a kind of "flank"

for example, you can "flank" the enemy by recruiting diplomatic or political pressure
or by making use of alternative economic resources
or by weakening their society and strengthening yours
or by developing a different technology (Americans' and Germans' favourite method)
or using "impassable" terrain (on the other hand, maybe this is Germany's favourite method)
or cheating on naval treaties

>>63976976
extending the idea of military strategy to politics or technology is kind of a stretch. if you go too far into it you end up like russians who are obsessed with informational warfare and subversion to the point where military conflict doesn't matter at all and it's all one big diplomatic scheme, with predictable consequences.

All combat strategy these days is just “you shoot and distract them while we go around the side and kill them” just have to adapt the details.. works with everything from 2 dudes with rocks, up to entire armies…

>>63976998
>extending the idea of military strategy to politics or technology is kind of a stretch
kinda yes; because that's called "grand strategy"

kinda no; because commanders from Sun-Tzu to Macchiavelli to Napoleon to Bismarck to Slim have emphasised the importance of various aspects of grand strategy and economy

>3. The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one’s deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.
>4. These are: (1) The Moral Law...
>The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.
everyone remembers Napoleon's bon mot but not that Sun-Tzu said pretty much the same thing too

>10. Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished.
>11. On the other hand, the proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people’s substance to be drained away.
>12. When their substance is drained away, the peasantry will be afflicted by heavy exactions.
>13, 14. With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength, the homes of the people will be stripped bare, and three-tenths of their incomes will be dissipated
late-medieval and Renaissance thinkers also maintained that the first foundation of a strong military is a strong economy

and yes, dizinformatsiya is part of it, a VERY important part of it since that's the only thing keeping Russian hopes alive really - we'd have crushed them long ago if not for the split they caused in American politics
Europeans also have gone all-in on "soft power" and forgotten the need for HARD power

so I'd say all of it is important

>>63977019
i talk about it because i feel that's where the distinction between "military" and "politics" lies and while both are important and politics can easily dictate how wars turn out it doesn't really belong to the topic of military itself, as in a tool for application of violence and force in various ways.

if you start mixing those two together you just end up with politics encompassing everything and the military becomes a meaningless term within the overall structure.

>>63977003
Exactly. I wonder if ancient armies had similar concepts to pinning down enemy troops while we hit their sides.
>>63976931
Decapitatory warfare, has any nation had that as a modus operandi? Sounds a lot like infiltration tactics employed by chiang cash my check and mao.

>>63977060
>Decapitatory warfare, has any nation had that as a modus operandi?
AirLand battle is the prime example.

There have been many cases since ancient times where a direct hit on a headquarters would cause an entire army to collapse.
The Battle of Gaugamela was a spectacular one.

>>63976998
but if you don't go far enough into it then you end up like the nazis and have to fight three empires at the same time, also with predictable results

>>63977592
Just recognize the things as different subjects: there are military matters and there are political ones and they can either support each other or interfere with one another. That way you can have a competent military and support it politically wherever it's needed.

Stupid political decisions aren't exactly restricted to the militaristic dictatorships. Poland fucked around during interwar quite a lot and folded much quicker than Germans did.

bump

It depends, if you re trying to have fun,
You can just make a trebuchet that launches 500Kgs Of explosives at the enemy trench.

>>63979967
how is that relevant