Western vs Eastern warfare

[stratego]

Do you agree with this? Western societies focus more on tactics (formation during battle, guarding etc) in warfare while Eastern societies focus for on strategy (hiding movements, positioning, fooling the enemy etc). It is just that in the last three centuries technology is improving so fast that tactic plays a much more considerable role. Now the US doesn't have to worry too much about out manuvering the Iraqis because they can position their troop almost anywhere they want and what becomes important is the formation of the troops. But now that technology is spreading to other countries the West should focus more attention on strategy than before.

 

[Voynich]

I have a book that claims that traditionally the West has focused heavily on winning decisive battles, usually pitched ones, by concentrating forces on a particular site to attack while the East generally focused on trying to gain superiority or to use a type of hit and run and the use of hiding to gradually waste the enemy's strength.

It called the one technique "the Western" one.

 

[Bobo the Ape]

@stratego

I agree that that's the way it used to be but I don't think that's the way it is now. There are plenty of modern examples of Western armies using the strategies you've attributed to the East.

I believe that both are important. Which is more important will be due to the situation at hand.

During Normandy deception and manuever were important in order to be able to land a force of such size and give it time to establish a beachead. Individual tactics weren't as important and a large percentage of the landing force were "green" soldiers

In Iraq where most of the battles are occuring at a platoon level then the importance of tactics increase. Strategy is still important iin being able to move forces about the theatre and such but the unit tactics are the key.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I don't believe there's a difference betw 'Eastern' and 'Western' styles of warfare. You just make the best use of your resources and tactical advantages and win.

Moderator Action: Moved to History fr OT, where it's almost fallen off the 1st page.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Voynich
I have a book that claims that traditionally the West has focused heavily on winning decisive battles, usually pitched ones, by concentrating forces on a particular site to attack while the East generally focused on trying to gain superiority or to use a type of hit and run and the use of hiding to gradually waste the enemy's strength.

It called the one technique "the Western" one.

This is what John Keegan claims. The so-called "western way of war" is supposedly based on close face-to-face battles of annihilatory attrition, starting with barbarian infantry charges of the northern tribes, through the ferocious infantry warfare of the Greeks and (esp.) the Romans, and culminating in the Great War in battles like the Somme and Verdun.

 

[pomsa]

Yeah, and most Eastern Asians (read: Chinese) focused more on strategically defeating their enemy before the first battle begins. In fact, in the fourteenth century, a king had to issue an order that every general who didn't attack was executed.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I certainly disagree XIII, the war styles are very different. It is what has completely frustrated America throughout the latter half of the 20th century. In Vietnam, the NVA and VC lost every single batte, but won the war. Western tactics losing to eastern strategy.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by calgacus
This is what John Keegan claims. The so-called "western way of war" is supposedly based on close face-to-face battles of annihilatory attrition, starting with barbarian infantry charges of the northern tribes, through the ferocious infantry warfare of the Greeks and (esp.) the Romans, and culminating in the Great War in battles like the Somme and Verdun.

I rather enjoyed his recent book on warfare, although I forget the title. It is interesting to read that the Greeks were forced to fight such a vicious battle, because the mass of men pushing from behind prevented any kind of cutting and running from the guys at the frontline.

 

[rilnator]

I'm not too well read read on eastern warfare but they seem a lot more ruthless than their western counterparts with the Mongols, Turks, Japanese etc more inclined to massacre enemy populations.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Sobieski II
I certainly disagree XIII, the war styles are very different. It is what has completely frustrated America throughout the latter half of the 20th century. In Vietnam, the NVA and VC lost every single batte, but won the war. Western tactics losing to eastern strategy.

Like I'd said, you make the best use of whatever resources and tactical advantages you have and win.

E.g. the Vietnamese certainly couldn't go head with head directly with the US. So the formula for them to win? Long war of attrition.

If they'd the kind of material resources the US had, their style would certainly have changed.

Same for the Chinese during the Korean War. They know they couldn't match the US directly - so guerilla style warfare and human wave attacks, making the best use of the only thing they had in abundance - manpower.

Perhaps there'd been a long tradition of strategy (aka Sun Tzu) in the East, but otherwise if they had the resources, they'd certainly launch direct positional 'Western'-style attacks.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by rilnator
I'm not too well read read on eastern warfare but they seem a lot more ruthless than their western counterparts with the Mongols, Turks, Japanese etc more inclined to massacre enemy populations.

Those are very specific examples - e.g. the Chinese and Indians certainly didn't usually go around massacring enemy populations after victory in warfare, at least not that much.

These were tactics used by the Mongols and Turks to control a much larger sedentary population they're conquering - thru the threat of loosing terror on the pop.

 

[MattII]

It wasn't tactics that lost Vietnam, it was the fact that the VC refused to give in.

 

[Benderino]

Both of those examples are of tactics. Strategies, to me, would be broader aims and goals on a global context. For instance, the military invasion of Iraq was tactically superb. The coalition forces fought adroitly and bravely. The overall strategy, however, will not only be regime change in Iraq, but also in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, the PA, Libya, etc. that will occur from Saddam losing power.

 

[pomsa]

Nobody won the Vietnam War.
The VC was defeated in Tet.
The US ran away and lost face.
The Vietnamese are still recovering from the damage of the war, and are embracing Capitalism.

 

[allhailIndia]

No war can be won by tactics or strategy alone. Only a good balance of the two can lead to ultimate victory.

 

[blindside]

Originally posted by XIII
Those are very specific examples - e.g. the Chinese and Indians certainly didn't usually go around massacring enemy populations after victory in warfare, at least not that much.

These were tactics used by the Mongols and Turks to control a much larger sedentary population they're conquering - thru the threat of loosing terror on the pop.

This did not even apply to all the Turks. Some did it but others settled down and never resorted to such acts. Ofcourse some cities and towns get razed and pillaged but that happens in almost every war.

 

[allhailIndia]

If what XIII says about the Mongols and Turks to be true, then it should have been that the offspring of both the Turks and Mongols, the Mughals, should have been worse than either of them, but the history of India proves otherwise, despite what some "pseudo historians" say

 

[Revolutionary]

Originally posted by rilnator
I'm not too well read read on eastern warfare but they seem a lot more ruthless than their western counterparts with the Mongols, Turks, Japanese etc more inclined to massacre enemy populations.

are you kiddy do you truely think the west is less ruthless than the east look at the Greeks, Romans, Germanic and Celtic tribes of the Ancient era,

or the hundreds of years of genocidial warfare during the middle ages , i.e. the crusades, the many religious wars of Europe, the genocidal conquest of the Native American peoples and empires in both North and South America, the genocide of the Aborigines in Australia

or the colonial conquest of most of the world by the Europeans. Look at WW1 and especially WW2 with the massive destruction and genocide by your so called less ruthless west

the concept of total war and mutually assured destruction is a western one not an eastern one

so it is completely clear that the west is and has been far more ruthless in warfare then the east

 

[allhailIndia]

Plus, anything the barbarians could do, the Romans could do better

 

[Ballazic]

I think it depends on the nation. Sure you will have promary strategy but at the end its the amrys flexibality that counts.