Battle tactic that changed the face of warfare..

[Warship NWS]

In your opinion what single battle tactic changed the face of warfare? Any time frame is welcome.

[old_pop2000]

In your opinion what single battle tactic changed the face of warfare? Any time frame is welcome.
This one is easy, the double envelopment as used by Hannibal at Cannae. The Roman Army was at the pinnacle of its abilities and should have crushed Hannibal. Varro and Paullus had over 50,000 men, Hannibal barely over 40000. But with a superior commmander, they destroyed the Roman Army.

This tactical maneuver was studied heavily by the German General staff and was enlarged to a strategic plan for France.

Sun Tzu briefly mentions the pincer movement in his treatise.

Zhukov used it at Stalingrad, Morgan used it at Cowpens against the British and Ludendorff and Hindenburg used it at Tannenburg.

It is still taught and trained on at the Desert Training grounds at Barstow by Opfor. It is the ultimate battle of annihilation.

[Warship NWS]

The first use of aerial squadrons changed the face of air warfare forever. Major Lanoe Hawker (DH2s) and Major De Rose (Neiuport 11s) first used aerial squadrons as part of their tactics in 1915 (Hawker) and 1916 (De Rose at Verdun) to decisive effect and in turn eliminted the aerial supremacy of the German Air Services that were using the Fokker Eindekker EIIIs. This proved instrumental in turning the tide on the ground at Verdun which was initially working against the French due to lack of air superiority which proved critical to the accuracy of the German artillery bombardments that caused the front lines of the French to be decimated.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

Naval tactic that changed naval combat forever.. the use of torpedo boat/destroyer flotillas starting around the early 1900s. This caused battleships to be designed with rapid fire guns and the use of "escorting" smaller warships to protect the capital ships.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Naval tactic that changed naval combat forever.. the use of torpedo boat/destroyer flotillas starting around the early 1900s. This caused battleships to be designed with rapid fire guns and the use of "escorting" smaller warships to protect the capital ships.

Chris:

They also caused battles to be fought at longer ranges if only to avoid the torpedoes. This leads to improvements in fire control, bigger guns and bigger ships. Indeed battleships might have disappeared if it had not been for the torpedo. Since the ships were originally fighting at such close ranges, designers began to despair of being able to armor them against large guns. Once the ranges opened up and steel replaced iron, modern battleships could be designed with less armor and far better armor placement.

[Ed Rotondaro]

In your opinion what single battle tactic changed the face of warfare? Any time frame is welcome.

Chris:

In the post Viet Nam era, I would say the networking of the entire battlefield made possible by digital electronics. Now communication is a weapon system.

[Warship NWS]

Chris:

In the post Viet Nam era, I would say the networking of the entire battlefield made possible by digital electronics. Now communication is a weapon system.

Which all started with the radio and telegraphy of WW1. Without that.. combined operations of mechanized warfare would never have been possible.

[fred8615]

This one is easy, the double envelopment as used by Hannibal at Cannae. The Roman Army was at the pinnacle of its abilities and should have crushed Hannibal. Varro and Paullus had over 50,000 men, Hannibal barely over 40000. But with a superior commmander, they destroyed the Roman Army.
Except the Greeks used essentially the exact same tactic against the Persians at the battle of Marathon in 490 BC. Hannibal may not have been so much an innovator as a copier at Cannae.

[old_pop2000]

Except the Greeks used essentially the exact same tactic against the Persians at the battle of Marathon in 490 BC. Hannibal may not have been so much an innovator as a copier at Cannae.
I agree, but when you examine Marathon, it was more by accident rather than by design. That is the essential difference. The Persian army was not destroyed, just badly mauled. In the true double envelopment, annihilation is the object and this was achieved at Cannae. It is a difficult maneuver to perfect and execute, requiring the cooperation of your enemy in performing poorly. In fact, Herodutus tells us that the Greek center was retreating quickly, but maintaining battle formation. While the retreat was planned, it became more extensive that originally designed and pull the Persian's forward and the wings with them. This allowed the Greek wings to fold in and defeat the Persians. In fact, Miltiades had lengthened his line to cover all the ground and thereby weakened his center. The weakened center was not by design. The events that unfolded were simply because of the force ratio in the center.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Which all started with the radio and telegraphy of WW1. Without that.. combined operations of mechanized warfare would never have been possible.

Chris:

Prior to that, I don't think the Signal Corps existed in most armies.

[asnrobert]

Chris:

Prior to that, I don't think the Signal Corps existed in most armies.

Actually, I believe the Union Army in the Civil War had a signal corps, using "wig-wag" flags to transmit messages.

[fred8615]

Actually, I believe the Union Army in the Civil War had a signal corps, using "wig-wag" flags to transmit messages.
As well as telegraph lines when and where they could run them.

[old_pop2000]

Actually, I believe the Union Army in the Civil War had a signal corps, using "wig-wag" flags to transmit messages.
The Union Army Signal Corps had first used signals in the Navajo Wars. It wasn't authorized as a separate entity until 1863. They used flags, rockets and signal lights. There were 20 combination of lights. An important part of the Army Signal Corps was the interception of enemy signals. The Battle of Gettysburg was the first battle in history, where the Army commander kept in constant contact with his corps and division commanders.

[Kyle Holgate]

Naval tactic that changed naval combat forever.. the use of torpedo boat/destroyer flotillas starting around the early 1900s. This caused battleships to be designed with rapid fire guns and the use of "escorting" smaller warships to protect the capital ships.

I don't really consider the implimentation and use of new technology to be a tactic. Tactic is a method of doing something not the use of something in the first place.
Flying over a front line and looking down is not a tactic, flying low to surprise people and catch them up to something where you would not have before - that is a tactic.
Dennis has it right - manuver fits the bill & how you USE your new torpedo boats does - the use of then or aircraft though are not tactics as such in my book.

[old_pop2000]

I don't really consider the implimentation and use of new technology to be a tactic. Tactic is a method of doing something not the use of something in the first place.
Flying over a front line and looking down is not a tactic, flying low to surprise people and catch them up to something where you would not have before - that is a tactic.
Dennis has it right - manuver fits the bill & how you USE your new torpedo boats does - the use of then or aircraft though are not tactics as such in my book.
Kyle:
Two of the most important technological innovations, that changed warfare were not even weapons. The gasoline engine and the wireless telegraphy. The gasoline engine made motor transportation possible, along with the tank. It also made possible the self propelled or automobile torpedo. The torpedo had a gasoline engine fueled by compressed gas. it's interesting that whitehead borrowed many ideas to develop the torpedo. The blunt nose was developed by a Dr. Fronde, the Gyro by an Austria officer, the engine by Otto. The only device that Whitehead developed was the hydrostatic depth device for maintaining the torpedo at the proper depth.

Wireless telegraphy increased the span of control for command and control. It helped mobililty by allowing reconnaissance and observers to transmit sighting reports immediately, to allow the on scene commanders to make decisions more effectively.

These two, non-lethal, non-military devices probably helped to develop 20th century warfare more than many lethal devices. Tactics and strategy were changed by these two devices. Without the wireless, the Schlieffen Plan or the Von Moltke plan might not have been possible as the span of control was such that the armies would have had an upper limit due to control difficulties.

[Ed Rotondaro]

As well as telegraph lines when and where they could run them.

Fred:

I wonder if other armies were using telegraphs during this time period? Of course most of their military experience was fighting against colonial tribes, not other industrialized nations.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Kyle:
Two of the most important technological innovations, that changed warfare were not even weapons. The gasoline engine and the wireless telegraphy. The gasoline engine made motor transportation possible, along with the tank. It also made possible the self propelled or automobile torpedo. The torpedo had a gasoline engine fueled by compressed gas. it's interesting that whitehead borrowed many ideas to develop the torpedo. The blunt nose was developed by a Dr. Fronde, the Gyro by an Austria officer, the engine by Otto. The only device that Whitehead developed was the hydrostatic depth device for maintaining the torpedo at the proper depth.

Wireless telegraphy increased the span of control for command and control. It helped mobililty by allowing reconnaissance and observers to transmit sighting reports immediately, to allow the on scene commanders to make decisions more effectively.

These two, non-lethal, non-military devices probably helped to develop 20th century warfare more than many lethal devices. Tactics and strategy were changed by these two devices. Without the wireless, the Schlieffen Plan or the Von Moltke plan might not have been possible as the span of control was such that the armies would have had an upper limit due to control difficulties.

Dennis:

Without internal combustion, I don't think you'd see aircraft at all. It's not like the jet engine could have been developed independent of internal combustion.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Without internal combustion, I don't think you'd see aircraft at all. It's not like the jet engine could have been developed independent of internal combustion.
That would be another weapon that needed the gasoline engine. We tend to focus on the airplane and the truck, but the four cycle, four stroke gasoline engine was the basic requirement needed for those two weapons.

One last issue, is the torpedo. It was an evolutionary weapon. It evolved from the spar torpedo or mine. As with most technological developments, they are usually built on the works of others. It did, however, cause a revolution in fleet tactics, that I will agree on. I have researched this point, in period documents including some written by the Whiteheads. All the documents point to the weapon as being an evolutionary step but tactics were revolutionized by their development. I believe that Captain Wayne Hughes agrees in "Fleet Tactics". He states that the ram was never an effective weapon. He calls the torpedo "a ram with reach" on Page 67. He states that the ram was superceded by the torpedo.

[Ed Rotondaro]

That would be another weapon that needed the gasoline engine. We tend to focus on the airplane and the truck, but the four cycle, four stroke gasoline engine was the basic requirement needed for those two weapons.

One last issue, is the torpedo. It was an evolutionary weapon. It evolved from the spar torpedo or mine. As with most technological developments, they are usually built on the works of others. It did, however, cause a revolution in fleet tactics, that I will agree on. I have researched this point, in period documents including some written by the Whiteheads. All the documents point to the weapon as being an evolutionary step but tactics were revolutionized by their development. I believe that Captain Wayne Hughes agrees in "Fleet Tactics". He states that the ram was never an effective weapon. He calls the torpedo "a ram with reach" on Page 67. He states that the ram was superceded by the torpedo.

Dennis:

Yet strangely enough, due to the freak luck of the Austrians at Lissa, navies built ships with ram bows right up to WWI.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Yet strangely enough, due to the freak luck of the Austrians at Lissa, navies built ships with ram bows right up to WWI.
I'm wondering if the ram bow on WW1 warships was more of a hydrodynamic drag reduction device and less a weapon. I can research in my late 19th century, early 20th century naval engineering books.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I'm wondering if the ram bow on WW1 warships was more of a hydrodynamic drag reduction device and less a weapon. I can research in my late 19th century, early 20th century naval engineering books.


Dennis:

At least pre-Dreadnought, the ram bow was considered a weapon. But the shape persisted well after ramming was dropped as a viable tactic (except for subs, HMS Dreadnought's only combat was ramming a U-boat), so there may have been some engineering reason for it. The USN dropped it in the California class and the New Mexico class BBs. The final generation of battleships never used it.

[Kyle Holgate]

The torpedo, airplane, radio, none of these are tactics. Ok, so I am nit picking, but a split S manuver to escape an enemy plane is a tactic - the plane itself is not - raidoing that there are bogies at 10:00 low could be a tactic too - the radio iteslf is a piece of equipment.

[old_pop2000]

The torpedo, airplane, radio, none of these are tactics. Ok, so I am nit picking, but a split S manuver to escape an enemy plane is a tactic - the plane itself is not - raidoing that there are bogies at 10:00 low could be a tactic too - the radio iteslf is a piece of equipment.
Totally agree and my first post, was the double envelopment which is a tactic, not a piece of technology.

[old_pop2000]

In 1666, The Duke of Albemarle lead a British fleet against the United Provinces Fleet under De Ruyter in the Second Anglo-Dutch War. He used a new battle formation called the close hauled line of battle. This was a revolutionary battle formation for ships with broadside guns and evenly matched in speed.

[Kyle Holgate]

In 1666, The Duke of Albemarle lead a British fleet against the United Provinces Fleet under De Ruyter in the Second Anglo-Dutch War. He used a new battle formation called the close hauled line of battle. This was a revolutionary battle formation for ships with broadside guns and evenly matched in speed.

How about skip bombing? Blitzkrieg (panzers, artillery, ground support aircraft and infantry all working together)? Surface attack by U-boats? There are lots more, those just came to mind quickly.

[old_pop2000]

How about skip bombing? Blitzkrieg (panzers, artillery, ground support aircraft and infantry all working together)? Surface attack by U-boats? There are lots more, those just came to mind quickly.
You could add to that the phalanx, the cohort as revolutionary formations and tactics. The finger four formation pioneered iaircraft tactics in the Spanish Civil War by Werner Moelders and Adolf Galland. The combing tactic when torpedoes are launched at a formation of ships. There are many, how many are revolutionary is the real question.