Context: The idea of the “decisive battle” is as old as warfare itself, but trying to stake everything on the outcome of one or two engagements is a risky proposition. The classic example is Hannibal’s Italian campaign during the 2nd Punic War. He inflicted a string of devastating defeats—River Trebia, Lake Trasimene, Cannae—against the Romans that wiped out a fifth of their fighting age male population. However, he ultimately failed to capitalize on this battlefield success, and Rome was able to cut his army off from reinforcement and resupply. Battles are a means to an end, not the end itself.
Kaikeno on
“Listen, I know we’re starving, have low morale, and barely enough men left to put up a fight. But, if we can just win this one fight everything will work out, somehow.” – someone at some point, probably
SpecialistSun6563 on
This entirely depends on the war. Logistics is doubtlessly important, but “decisive battles” can be a viable strategy if you know your logistics cannot sustain an attritional war.
The reason behind the popularity of this strategy is simple: if you win the war in one or two battles, you can end it quickly with minimal losses for either side. It isn’t preferable to enter into a “war of attrition” because long, protracted wars wear out your nation and claim far more lives than a short, decisive conflict. Especially if your intent to conquer the enemy to expand your own territory, a long, protracted war is bad as you reduce your enemy’s assets and – thus – your future assets.
Decisive battle is going all in on a hand of poker. You’d better have a pretty good plan for what you do if the other guy has better cards and wins that hand.
HistorianEntire311 on
How the Imperial Japanese Navy in World War II, their entire strategy was to have a big epic battle that would knock out the American Navy, would have worked if the United States couldn’t build more ships at a faster rate than the Japanese could.
koshka91 on
And why Russians win. Not because they have high quality fighters. But because Soviets were able to rebuild their on the fly. No one can absorb such enormous losses.
As a recent example, Ukrainians had effectively exhausted their fighting force by May 2023. They need at least 10 years to rebuild and don’t have the strength to carry out any serious Operation Storm style sweeps
Due_Most6801 on
This quote is reflective of an age of industrialised warfare where yes single battles don’t win wars. They’re won by economies mostly, industry coping with demand and logistics – has always been important but now more than ever.
There are dozens of examples of if a certain battle went one way or the other it would have had seismic impact on history.
8 Comments
Context: The idea of the “decisive battle” is as old as warfare itself, but trying to stake everything on the outcome of one or two engagements is a risky proposition. The classic example is Hannibal’s Italian campaign during the 2nd Punic War. He inflicted a string of devastating defeats—River Trebia, Lake Trasimene, Cannae—against the Romans that wiped out a fifth of their fighting age male population. However, he ultimately failed to capitalize on this battlefield success, and Rome was able to cut his army off from reinforcement and resupply. Battles are a means to an end, not the end itself.
“Listen, I know we’re starving, have low morale, and barely enough men left to put up a fight. But, if we can just win this one fight everything will work out, somehow.” – someone at some point, probably
This entirely depends on the war. Logistics is doubtlessly important, but “decisive battles” can be a viable strategy if you know your logistics cannot sustain an attritional war.
The reason behind the popularity of this strategy is simple: if you win the war in one or two battles, you can end it quickly with minimal losses for either side. It isn’t preferable to enter into a “war of attrition” because long, protracted wars wear out your nation and claim far more lives than a short, decisive conflict. Especially if your intent to conquer the enemy to expand your own territory, a long, protracted war is bad as you reduce your enemy’s assets and – thus – your future assets.
Professionals don’t keep regurgitating made-up, uncited quotes.
Decisive battle is going all in on a hand of poker. You’d better have a pretty good plan for what you do if the other guy has better cards and wins that hand.
How the Imperial Japanese Navy in World War II, their entire strategy was to have a big epic battle that would knock out the American Navy, would have worked if the United States couldn’t build more ships at a faster rate than the Japanese could.
And why Russians win. Not because they have high quality fighters. But because Soviets were able to rebuild their on the fly. No one can absorb such enormous losses.
As a recent example, Ukrainians had effectively exhausted their fighting force by May 2023. They need at least 10 years to rebuild and don’t have the strength to carry out any serious Operation Storm style sweeps
This quote is reflective of an age of industrialised warfare where yes single battles don’t win wars. They’re won by economies mostly, industry coping with demand and logistics – has always been important but now more than ever.
There are dozens of examples of if a certain battle went one way or the other it would have had seismic impact on history.