What tactic has had the most influence on modern warfare?

DivljaJagoda

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
60
I personally believe that it's the blitzkrieg because it revolutionized warfare and in essence created modern warfare by claiming the tank as the primary weapon on the battlefield and it was the first tactic that utilized almost all aspects of the military in order to gain victory just as is prevalent in modern war. Agree? Disagree?
 
You have strategies and tactics confused. That being said, blitzkrieg is probably the most influential strategy in modern warfare. America's AirLand doctrine is basically blitzkrieg with modern technology. Tactics are pretty situational. Suicide bombing is likely the most prevalent tactic used today.
 
The use of GPS and satellites to locate enemy combatants and keep better track of where your own forces are at. This blurs the line between strategic and tactical but since it is actively used while in combat I'll say it can fall under the latter.

Blitzkrieg is also important.
 
Maybe we should define modern warfare before we continue. Do you mean conventional warfare, DiviljaJagoda? Or modern as in contemporary, which includes assymetrical warfare, even cyber-warfare?
 
That being said, blitzkrieg is probably the most influential strategy in modern warfare.
Apparently not anymore, to hear Dave Petraeus and Ray Odierno talk about it.
 
I think we will not know until the next big war... a war between two industrialized countries... nowadays only terrorist and guerrilla are being implemented.
 
The indirect approach, if you agree with Liddell-Hart.
 
I would consider the Combined Arms Doctrine more strategic than tactical. The Same for mutually assured destruction.
 
I would consider the Combined Arms Doctrine more strategic than tactical.
My avatar disagrees with you. :3 Blah blah blah Hohenfriedberg blah blah blah
 
Apparently not anymore, to hear Dave Petraeus and Ray Odierno talk about it.

But what is modern warfare? There's at least two kinds, and nuclear weapons have mostly prevented the "big war between modern armies" one.
 
But what is modern warfare? There's at least two kinds, and nuclear weapons have mostly prevented the "big war between modern armies" one.
There was a slight spat between Russia and China 40 years ago. No reason it couldn't potentially happen again. Total war between two nuclear nations seems to be out of the question, but localised wars between the two may not.
 
But what is modern warfare? There's at least two kinds, and nuclear weapons have mostly prevented the "big war between modern armies" one.
Ain't that the million dollar question. :p
There was a slight spat between Russia and China 40 years ago. No reason it couldn't potentially happen again. Total war between two nuclear nations seems to be out of the question, but localised wars between the two may not.
Psh. That didn't involve any blitzing, any large-scale Manchuria 1945-style movements of millions of men or anything like that, it was artillery barrages, air raids, and an intense amount of effort expended to fight over a coupla islands in the Amur and Ussuri. Bit of a letdown really.
 
Ain't that the million dollar question. :p

Psh. That didn't involve any blitzing, any large-scale Manchuria 1945-style movements of millions of men or anything like that, it was artillery barrages, air raids, and an intense amount of effort expended to fight over a coupla islands in the Amur and Ussuri. Bit of a letdown really.
I agree, but only because Russia and China pussied out. Any real nations would go at it far more violently.
 
I agree, but only because Russia and China pussied out. Any real nations would go at it far more violently.
Meh. Conventional wisdom says that 73 Easting is the closest you're going to get for a long while to come. :dunno:
 
Back
Top Bottom