MILITARY HISTORY OF TACTICS FOR JUNIOR OFFICERS I - SHORT HISTORY OF TACTICS

Introduction to This Series of History of Military Tactics

This a first part in series of articles reflecting some ideas on history of military tactics. The series will consider the following viewpoints to tactical history:

1. Introduction to military history at tactical level
2. Generations of warfare
3. Science of war and winning from historical perspective
4. Individual, society, culture and warfare in history
5. Tactical level Command and Control in military history
6. Contemporary warfare
7. Future of combat reflected from the history

The aim of this series is to analyse the history and reflect some lessons from it for the junior officers preparing for today's conflicts. 

1. Introduction to military history at the tactical level

“War is the father of all things”

- Heraclitus (Bradford, 2015)

The Three Levels of Warfare and one Political

Warfare has evolved to have three levels: strategic, operational, and tactical. These stages have accumulated over the time starting from force-on-force engagements at the tactical level, i.e., how to win a combat. As societies grow bigger and battles more costly, emerged the strategic level to analyse options to secure the society (e.g., village, tribe, city, region, nation) and ensure the protection of its interests. As the number of forces grew larger and areas of interest became more extensive, the operational level emerged to manage several troops and the battle at the same time. Furthermore, together with developing nation-states arise also a level of a grand strategy which was quickly integrated with the level of politics. (Fuller, 1992) 

As an outcome, there are four levels of security functions using centralised violence in the contemporary concept of warfare:

1. National Security Policy defines the ends for the security operations
2. Security Strategy defines how the available means and ways are arranged when facing the adversary
3. Military Operations defines more in detail how 
4. Military Tactics (including technical)

However, in contemporary war, one should not define a given level by the specific weapons used, on the targets attacked, or level of Command, but on the level of military objectives. An aircraft, dropping a warhead, could conduct a “tactical,” “operational,” or “strategic” mission, depending on the planned impact. Given the inherent flexibility, any tactical mission can deliver a mix of intended effects from tactical to strategic.

Short History of Tactics

The evolution of tactics through history has been trying to master the primary attributes of war: friction, uncertainty, fluidity, disorder, and complexity. 

1. Friction is a name for forces that prevent the troops from accomplishing their missions. These forces may arise from mental (indecision, fear, stress, lack of sleep, lack of training, unclear orders) or physical sources (enemy fire, terrain, weather, sophisticated technology). 
2. Uncertainty is ever-present since all actions in war will be based on incomplete, inaccurate, and contradicting information. The leader needs to be aware of the risk but also recognise the chance.
3. Fluidity means that battle is a constant flow of actions and counter-actions. Success requires troops to be ready to adapt to surprises.
4. The disorder is usual in battle. Own forces may be operating in the brink of the chaos, and only leadership keeps troops aiming after a common goal. Within adversary, one tries to generate disorder and demoralise their troops.
5. Complexity is the nature of war. All plans will become useless after the first clash of arms, but planning is essential to quickly capture what is crucial and take optimised decisions in the heat of battle.

The following table introduces the evolution of some tactical methods and principles in light of the previous attributes of war.

Time	Battle  (Chaliand, 2014)	Base for tactical advantage
1400 BCE	Megiddo, Palestine Egyptians are attacking Canaans.	Using the unexpected route, Thutmose supressed enemy scouting, gained bridgehead in the Megiddo valley and gained operational surprise. Using cavalry and chariots armed with composite bows, Thutmose was able to mass his more mobile force against an enemy weakness and create a breakthrough. The boldness of attack further demoralised enemy, which caused disorder, panic, and escape within the walls of the city.
1175 BCE	Battle of Delta, Nile Ramesses III repulsed a major sea invasion of the coalition of Sea Peoples	In the first documented maritime battle, Ramesses arranged a two-sided ambush in the mouth of the Nile having his fleet approaching from the sea and deploying archers on the shores of Nile. When the Sea People ships approached the coast, archers with volleys of fire pushed them back into the waiting Egyptian fleet, who were using the wind advantage.
535 BCE	Battle of Alalia A Greek force of 60 ships defeated a Punic-Etruscan fleet of 120 ships	First naval battle using ramming tactics. A “pentekonter” (ship with 48 oars and two rudders) with ram would push on the side of the enemy breaking their water line and sinking the crew.
338 BCE	Philip II of Macedon striking the allied Army of Athens and Thebes	Philip rearranged his hoplites by arming them with 4-6 m long spear (Sarissa), shield hanging from the neck and short sword.  He deployed them in 16x16 soldier companies. A battalion included 16 companies adding up to 256 men. Phalanx composed of several battalions. With increased training, the Phalanx formed very stable mid of his force and left the cavalry to attack the enemy flanks. With more controllable forces, Philip performed a wheeling manoeuvre where his right-wing retreat and left win struck, breaking the enemy line in two. After stretching the coalition left-wing, Macedonians stopped the withdrawal and attacked the overstretched enemy formation.
332 BCE	Siege of Tyre, Phoenicia, Macedonians besieging Persians	Alexander the Great besieged the town for seven months and attacked them by building a massive causeway to connect the island town and overcome their fortifications.
331 BCE	Battle of Gaugamela, near Dohuk in Iraqi Alexander the Great meets Darius III	Alexander surprised the defending Darius by taking the unsuspected route of approach. Therefore, Darius’s scorched-earth tactic did not affect Macedonians. In the battle, the Macedonian Phalanx took the brute mass of numerous Persians, while Alexander orders his cavalry to flank from right draw Darius’s troops in two parts. Seeing this opportunity, Alexander led his elite cavalry into the opening and threatened Darius himself. This caused Darius to flee, and his Army’s will of fighting broke without the supreme leader.
58 BCE	Battle of the Arar Roman legions led by Caesar won tribes of Helvetii.	Roman infantry was equipped with standard weapons (armour, sword, shield and two spears together 27 kg), organised in 8 men tent crews, which composed 80 men strong centuria. The cohort was composed of six centurias, together 480 fighters. Legion was made up of 10 cohorts. Legions mobility was dominant at the time. They marched 40 km a day, constructed a fortified camp within 2-5 hours, and carried 15 days rations. The Roman manipular formation included four layers of maniples: skirmishers, light infantry, junior heavy infantry, and senior heavy infantry.  While crossing the river Helvetii troops were caught by Romans who were able to attack the smallest part on the shore. Having being surprised, the Helvetii troops panicked and fled.
1066	Battle of Hastings, Normans conquering Britain	English infantry fighting from behind a shield wall was defeated by a Norman army consisting of archers, infantry, and mounted knights (cavalry). One of the tactics used by the Normans was to tempt the English to leave the shield wall to attack retreating Norman infantry only to destroy them in the open with cavalry
1838	The Battle of Veracruz, French fleet attacked Mexican citadel of San Juan De Ulua.	The shell guns were used by French squadron firing them in the bombardment of Vera Cruz, Mexico.  Naval engagement that pitted a French frigate squadron under Rear Admiral Charles Baudin against the Mexican citadel of San Juan de Ulúa, which defended the city of Veracruz.
1849	Austrians besieging Venice	The Austrians attached explosives to unmanned balloons and released them. After a specific interval, the bombs were to drop on the city. Their attempt failed: the bombs did little damage, with some even landing on friendly troops.
1853	The Crimean war between Russians, British, French and Ottomans. Use of the first armoured vessels	Heavy wrought-iron plates over a thick wooden backing gave these flat-bottomed vessels outstanding protection as they carried large-shell guns close inshore.
1914	During the I WW first air battle took place	On August 25, Roland Garros and Lt. de Bernis became the first flyers to damage an enemy aircraft. Flying a Morane Parasol, they shot at a German aeroplane, which escaped in a dive, although one of the two men on board was wounded. October 5 French pilot Sgt. Joseph Frantz and his mechanic/gunner, Louis Quénault, shot down a German biplane near Reims with their 8-millimetre Hotchkiss machine gun fixed to the front of the French Voison biplane and gained the first official aerial combat victory.
1916-1918	During the I WW first use of main battle tanks	British used tanks first during the Battle of the Somme on September 15, 1916. Nine of the 32 tanks managed to get across no man's land to the German trenches.  The French employed tanks for the first time on April 16, 1917, during the Nivelle Offensive.  The first tank versus tank battle did not occur until April 24, 1918, near the small town of Villers-Bretonneux
1940	During the II WW combined arms mechanised attack in Fall of France within 46 days	Guderian's corps of seven mechanised divisions spearheaded the drive through the Ardennes and over the Meuse River to France. Guderian led the attack that broke the French lines at the Battle of Sedan. Guderian's panzer group led the "race to the sea", ending with the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and French forces trapped at Dunkirk. The German Panzer divisions conducted combined arms operations with mobile offensive units, with balanced numbers of well-trained artillery, infantry, engineer, and tank formations. The various elements were united by wireless communication, which enabled them to work together at a quick tempo and exploit opportunities faster than the Allies could react. German units carried supplies for three to four days' operations.
1950	During the Korean War, the first jet fighter dog fight	November 8, 1950, a US Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star, America’s first operational jet fighter, flown by US Air Force Lieutenant Russell Brown, shot down a Soviet-built MiG-15 piloted by a North Korean pilot, in the first air-to-air combat between jet planes in aviation history.
1989	The US invasion of Panama	F-117 Nighthawk is the first operational aircraft 1983 designed explicitly around stealth technology. During US invasion to Panama, two F-117A Nighthawks dropped two bombs on Rio Hato airfield.
1991	Gulf War, US-led Alliance attacked Iraq and freed Kuwait.	A mix of strikes by fixed-wing aircraft including carpet bombing and precision bombing was used in combination with large numbers of strikes by attack helicopters. During the ground assault phase, tanks and other AFVs supported by attack aircraft swept over remaining forces. The front line moved forward at upwards of 40–50 km/h at the upper limit of the Army's tracked vehicles.
1996	French Navy, No significant engagements yet.	The French La Fayette class, FLF was 1996 known as "stealth frigates" due to their unique stealth design at the time. Their reduced radar cross-section is achieved by a clean superstructure compared to conventional designs, angled sides and radar-absorbent material, a composite material of wood and glass fibre as hard as steel, light, and resistant to fire.
2003	Invasion of Iraq	Alliance left by the US deployed the shock and awe doctrine advocating the use of overwhelming force, dominant battlefield manoeuvres and spectacular displays of brute force to paralyse the enemy’s understanding of the battlefield scenario and crushing its will to fight.
2014 -	Russo-Ukrainian War[1] [2] Russia invaded Donbass and Crimea parts of Ukrainian territory and tries to establish permanent governance.	A wake-up call to western military of the Russian renewed military capabilities. Russian renewed EW tactics (Kremenetskyi, 2019) aiming to jam all military communications and drive Ukrainians to use GSM, SATCOM, and Internet, where they are more vulnerable to cyber and man-in-the-middle attacks. Also, barrage jamming, and radiolocation were reintroduced. Both sides are using small UAVs to reconnoitre and locate artillery and command posts for indirect fire. In coordination of the infiltration 2014, Russia Cyber Teams (Park & Summers, 2017) were trying to suppress the Ukrainian social media sites using Cyber means, denied some IP-Addresses, breached the Ukrainian artillery application, shut down power grid, followed GSM discussions, and broadcasted TV and Radio content to the area. Russia deployed about 100 000 strong military force just outside of Ukrainian border to intimidate the Government. Meanwhile, Russia tried to promote a separatist rise in Eastern-Ukrainian, send proxy units to support the rise of pro-Russian movement. Unfortunately, these proxy units (motor-cycle gangs, private companies, militants, mercenaries, right-wing nationalists) caused more chaos than action towards political ends. Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs created units in both sides and were forcing their interests in the conflict.
2011 -	Syrian civil war[3] Extended the Arab Spring movement, divided Syria into different frictions and draw in ISIL, Iran, Turkey, Russia, and NATO engagement.	Turkey[4] started using drones in mass (Farooq, 2019) to avoid losses of pilots due Russian air defence supporting the forces of Syrian government and extended the use of drones in Libya 2019 onwards. ISIS demonstrated[5] (Watson, 2017) that they can manufacture surveillance and grenade-dropping drones from commercial components within occupied settlements and gain air dominance with 1000 m ceiling above the target area. U.S., Turkey and western military awoke from their assumed air superiority posture when Russia deployed S-400 SAM-systems[6] and Su-35 fighters to Syria and denied the free use of airspace (Bronk, 2017). The definition of “anti-access/areas-denial”, A2/AD, was created (Roblin, 2019).

_________________________________

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iulAfPHB_bA

[3] https://www.britannica.com/event/Syrian-Civil-War/Civil-war

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzB5Vip5Wpc

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vY7i_eR06M

[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN-AtPNl_IE

____________________________________________________________

Cultural Difference in Approach to War

War has coincided with the humankind from the very beginning. It has its foundations in pride, emotions, and instincts. By one estimate, in the last 5000 years, human beings have fought wars 94 years of every hundred. (Alexander, 2010) Human societies have had different cultural viewpoints to war: 

• The hunter-gatherer did not recognise the phenomena of war, but a violent action based on revenge, fear, or hatred towards the “others”. The survival of a tribe was based on ability wield weapons. (Machiavelli, 1965)
• To Vikings, Mongols, Arab nomads, and Cossacks fighting was a part of their culture. (Keegan, 1993)
• To Clausewitz and Lenin war was a continuation of political intercourse intermixing military power with other means. (Strachan, 2007)
• Napoleon, on the other hand, considered war a specific event. It starts with engagement and ends with the losing party signing a peace treaty. Henceforth, war has been understood as a legally controlled (in dimensions of military necessity, distinction, proportionality, humanity, and honour), finite event ending with lawfully binding treaties.  Therefore, for example, Soviet Union (1979)  and the US A (2001)  entered Afghanistan with finite operation expectations (months, blue-red, annihilation) whereas Afghans were fighting back with infinite (Carse, 1986) mindset (fight for existence, the honour of the family, and revenge). 

The major challenge in the recent engagements, for example, between the US or NATO-led coalitions and local insurgents with an international network of support is the different cultural mindset to war. 

Another cultural difference in approach to war is its totality. Total war is a military conflict in which the contenders are willing to make any sacrifice in lives and other resources to obtain a complete victory, as distinguished from limited war. Throughout history, limitations on the scope of warfare have been more economical and social than political. Pure territorial aggrandisement has not, for the most part, brought about total commitments to war. The deadliest conflicts have been fought on ideological grounds in revolutions and civil and religious wars. (Encyclopaedia of Britannica, n.d.) Here are some examples of limited and total wars with different sources of power:

• France and Spain occupied Portugal 1807 and France took over Spain and installed Joseph Bonaparte on the Spanish throne. Spaniards started uprising 1808 and Guerra de la Independencia which lasted until 1814. Quarrelling provincial Juntas deployed small groups of armed civilians to ambush, sabotage, and raid French rear echelons and their supplies, i.e. asymmetric warfare. "Wherever we arrived, they disappeared, whenever we left, they arrived — they were everywhere and nowhere, they had no tangible centre which could be attacked." (Talbot, 1978) The guerrilla tactics bind a large portion of French troop to secure routes of communication and supply. Therefore the Alliance storming from Portugal ware successfully attacking the main French forces.  Source of power for Juntas of Spain were terrain and spirit of the people.

• When Napoleon invaded Russian 1812 with 685 000 strong army, his strategy was to engage and defeat the Russian Army and end with peace agreement where Russia would stop supporting the UK. 

  
• His tactics was to use the combined arms of artillery, cavalry, and infantry columns to hit the weakest point of the enemy formation. His approach was limited to seek military defeat through battle. Russians, on the other hand, avoided the significant engagement, withdraw, and employed scorched-earth tactics, destroying villages, towns and crops, and forcing the invaders to rely on a supply system that was incapable of feeding their large Army in the field. Russian used the depth of their nation and finally, the hardness of their winter to suppress the invader's source of power. 

 

• Sherman’s March took place 1864 when he launched a raid from Atlanta for 480 km towards the port of Savannah. 
  
• His forces destroyed military and civilian assets disrupting the Confederacy’s economy and transportation. The Sherman commanded his troops: “should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.”  Shermans tactic of devastation was to strike to the Confederate source of power - economic production and freedom of movement.

• After the I WW, Erich Ludendorff defined the total war as total mobilisation of manpower and resources of the nation for war. 

  
• A supreme military commander would lead the country at war, and strategy would dictate policy. The concept of total war moved geography and economics into prominent positions when Nazi regime build and deployed of 3.2 million troops, over 2500 tanks and about 1500 attack aircraft  in the II WW from the core of Treaty of Versailles with 100 000 men, no tanks, or planes. (Encyclopaedia of Britannica, n.d.) German source of power was the mindset and ability of their nation.

• Before the first Gulf war against Saddam and Iraq, the US Air Force (John Warden) developed a strategy to suppress the adversary nation through bombing the targets within five rings: 

  
• 1. Leadership, 2. System essentials, 3. Infrastructure, 4. Population, and 5. Military forces. Warden's theory was based on the systems model of weaker nations; therefore, it may be feasible in attacking developing and weaker regimes, where leadership is concentrated, economy easily collapsible and spirit of population manipulative.

Nature of contemporary war

As societies, global power postures, technology, population and weaponry have evolved, the wars have also changed from the era of World Wars to more modern conflicts. (Kaldor, 2012) The change effects even at the tactical level:

	Old War	Contemporary War
Politics & Society	The warring parties were states or coalition of nations in a global context.	Political identity is both local and global; national and transnational at the same time. The character of the party at war spreads through diaspora, ideology, regional interests, kindship, etc. 20% of core fighters of ISIS were foreigners. (Gurcan)
	The political cohesion was founded and hold through state-controlled education, newsletters, radio, and television.	The speed of political mobilisation is increased with digital media. War-related memes and brands are created on mobile phones, the Internet, and social media.
	Distinctive home- and battlefronts, Coherently motivated troops.	Diverse troops with different training and organisation. No coherent motivation.
Military Force	The military goal is to capture territory or annihilate the military force of the adversary and hence forced to sign a peace treaty.	The military goal is to capture territory by controlling the population in the area either by capturing their “hearts and minds” (Tse-tung, 2007) or sowing “fear and hatred” (Gurcan) which is reflected to a broader audience over digital media.
	Hierarchically organised units mostly with the unity of Command and responsibility. Steep hierarchical line of Command at worst and mission command at best.	Highly decentralised and disparate range of different types of groups like paramilitary units, local warlords, criminal gangs, police forces, mercenary groups and regular armies.
	Tactics aim to dominate the situation with massed firepower (air, artillery, fighting vehicles) and, as a last resort, to engage with infantry.	Aim to surprise or ambush with advanced light weapons like undetectable land mines[1]; assault rifles light even for children to use[2]; multi-warhead[3], shoulder-launched weapons (anti-tank, fragmented, penetrating)[4]; small rocket launchers; and various ground/sea/air unmanned platforms.
	Responsible commands and trained troops are following a code of conduct.	Contradicting interests between units, irresponsible troops, varied behaviour.
Support	Centralised, totalising, and autarchic war economy with long lines of supply chain reaching out to coalition nations.	Decentralised, local plunder, hostage-taking, taxation, illegal trade, black-market, or external assistance. Clusters of war economy were created in support of Balkans, Caucasus, and Central Asia conflicts.[5]
	Global defence industry clusters benefit from the consumption of weaponry and investments to new defence systems.	Diverse parties gain from cooperation both military (insecurity and suspicion) and economic (assets) benefits.
	Units have political and military interests.	Units have mixed agendas between military, economic, every-day food, and power status.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_mines_in_Cambodia

[2] https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-semi-automatic-rifle-for-beginners/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket-propelled_grenade

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJYSM__PnO8

[5] https://www.berghof-foundation.org/fileadmin/redaktion/Publications/Handbook/Dialogue_Chapters/dialogue3_ballentine_nitzschke.pdf

_________________________________________________________________

The series in history of tactics continues in next article