OP Battle stategies/tactics/formations/autism

Post OP battle strategies and the like
>pic related

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=d8LiQFnkuJY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mohi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Esztergom_(1241)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

>muh archers
Fuck your archers

oh no, not the MUH PIKES BLOCK ARROWS meme again

youtube.com/watch?v=d8LiQFnkuJY

> Charge at and into the forward infantry with your cavalry
> Mobilize other cavalry in a pincer attack to ensure a win
> Impale your horses on their spears and pikes rendering them useless
> Ram their balistas and catipults with your cavalry
> Make sure to feed you horses only fiber, milk, and honey ensuring a biological attack as you shear through the enemy
> Take out any machine gun nests with your super agile cavalry
> Outmanouver their armoured division with your elite cavalry, but make sure they are armed with glorious nipon steel katanas so they can slice through the tanks with ease
> Surreneder immediately if they have even one elephant

these were the best unit, prove me wrong
>protip: you cant

They were basically useless against armoured opponents, but in terms of versatility and general effectiveness yeah they were probably the best

Horse archers are awful at attacking fortified positions

t. Antoine Lasalle

I'd like to see them take on a modern mechanized infantry regiment.

>They were basically useless against armoured opponents

Nah.

>Horse archers are awful at attacking fortified positions

So don't use them for that?

Horse archers are basically used to pin infantry in place so that something more dangerous can manouver and kill them, a lot like the way modern infantry are used

Arrows are nearly useless against armoured and shield soldiers, but the soldier generally has to face the archer and keep his shield up to be protected

Very effective in open battle against infantry heavy armies, less so against armoured cavalry or in restrictive terrain

>Nah.
Yeah actually, arrows are more or less incapable of seriously hurting an armoured soldier with his shield up

See Battle of Carrhae, where it was the cataphracts that did almost all the damage even though it was the horse archers that won the battle

>So don't use them for that?
Kek.
>don't use the majority of the army

>Arrows are nearly useless against armoured and shield soldiers
>implying the only use of arrows is to kill

Their purpose, as I have already stated, is to pin infantry in place and inhibit their ability to fight

Horse archers get curbstomped by armoured cavalry because they cant do anything against them

>don't use the majority of the army

Huh? This is what you get for basing your knowledge on video games. PROTIP: the same people can do different tasks

>Horse archers get curbstomped by armoured cavalry

When?

Literally, kek.

>PROTIP: the same people can do different tasks
Not when you have 2-3 horses to take care of daily, training to do in literally only horsemanship and arching.

You are a literal retard. They were an army trained only, well, essentially only in archery and horsemanship. When they were faced with anything armoured, por stationary like a castle, they lost.

What the fuck are you supposed to do with 6/10 of your army, when all they are are horse riding and arching machines.

Stop at any time. Fucking moron.

The point he's making is that a primarily mounted force also proficient in ranged combat will usually hold the initiative at both tactical and strategic level. True, they might not have been specialists at assaulting fortified positions, but that wasn't an issue in situations where they could simply avoid them and go after soft targets.

this is the point.

>>Horse archers are awful at attacking fortified positions
Random user, not me
>So don't use them for that?
His reply

When they were faced with anything armoured, por stationary like a castle, they lost.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mohi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Esztergom_(1241)

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mohi
Not a siege
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Esztergom_(1241)
Not a siege either since all of hungary had fled after Mohi.

Not really using examples in your favour here.

>Not a siege
Armored men though.

Yeah, that doesn't work so well when you're pressing very lightly equipped men who spend most of their waking hours on horseback into a battle where they're on foot against armored opponents who shooting from cover, and are inevitably going to have to fight actual infantry in close combat.

Steppe nomads avoided siege to an incedible extent because they absolutely fucking hated them.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mohi
Not a siege, incompetent hungarian king, still a very narrow win for mongols.


>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Esztergom_(1241)
The stone citadel never fell, and not for lack of trying on the mongols part.

>Armored men though.
Not really, no. Hungary was a backwater at the time with relatively shitty armies. The Hungarians actually went out of their way to start raising more armored troops at any cost after the invasion

Longbows

>inb4 English bodkins can't penetrate steel plate
They can and did, if the angle of impact was correct

Crecy, Poitiers, Halidon Hill, Agincourt, Verneuil, the list could go on

Well, you're a special kind of retarded.

In my Attila Total war battles

This.

Yeah sure, I bet you believe the English did virtually nothing to win Agincourt and the French sort of just tripped over each other and drowned in mud

Also, I don't know about other steppe armies but the Mongols made sure like a third of their forces were heavily armored lancers. It's not all bows.

Personal favorites:

Regressive Pocket
>used defensively against invading armies
>defenders would take the offense with offensive units
>defensive barriers would trail behind them
>if offensive units falter, defensive units setup temporarily line of control
>line of control held against aggressors until offensive reinforcements were deployed
>rinse and repeat

Pros:
- Line of attrition always changing (usually advantageous to user)

Cons:
- Dependent on a good offense
- Too dependent on reinforcements

Double Pronged Spear
>old encircling tactic to fight off armies
>splits main army into two smaller armies; smaller armies circle main army
>to prevent encirclement of smaller armies, said armies split into "spear-like" formations that prong outward
>"prongs" prevent outside forces from capitulating circle
>prongs prevent encircled army from breaking the weakest links of the circle

Pros:
- Swallows entire armies completely, capitulating them
- Never breaks formation
- Kills enemy morale fast

Cons:
- Prongs can get swallowed if they attack purely aggro armies or stray too far from the circle
- Prongs can be a crutch if they don't attack properly, causing the army encircling the weaker forces to be circled itself


Bonus points: guess where these tactics were used, desu

They did tho.
>Generally inaccurate
>Less effective than unmounted archers
>Required 20+ horses to be sustainable
>Got fucked in battles against a dug in opponent
>Couldn't fight in crowed areas
The best unit is the modern infantry man, you can't dispute this.

...

I guess that's why Venice is still an independent republic

It is though, its called israel now

/pol/ pls go

Here's a lazy attempt:
1. Spain?

2. The First Caliphate

The english won agincourt by engaging the french in hand to hand combat on three fucking sides.

The arrows did jack shit to actually kill anybody, hence the goddamn leader of the tiny french cavalry charge coming out alive, and the need for the archers to charge into hand to hand combat in the first place.

Deep battle is the most powerful and innovative theory of war to come out of the disaster of ww1 and there is no one who can tell me otherwise


>tfw a powerful masculine Combined Arms Army rams its hot steaming OMG through your FEBA

>tfw a single operational, strategic and tactical doctrine can work for the soviets from the 1920s until the 1980s while the US fumbles through like 5 completely differing doctrines before finally settling on the operationally shallow airland battle in the fucking 80s

Ah yes, the great Israel payoffs such as the Arab-Israeli War, Sinai Campaign, and Six Day War.

1. Close
2. Ding ding ding

>European armored infantry was the best unit for warfare.

Yeah we saw this in the crusades, kek

>Not really, no. Hungary was a backwater at the time with relatively shitty armies. The Hungarians actually went out of their way to start raising more armored troops at any cost after the invasion

All of Europe was some shitty backwater back then. Their armies and logistics were so bad that they couldn't even pass the Levant while asian armies could campaign all the way from Persia to China.

Horse Archers aside, did Asians have any powerhouse infantry formation? Seems to me its all spear wall faggotry over there in the east.

Take your pick.
>Chinese Crossbow & Pike formation.
>Japanese Musket line.
>Chinese "Mandarin Duck Formation."

>Seems to me its all spear wall faggotry over there in the east.
If anything, there's serious light infantry action going on in Asia. Most Azn infantry is a light infantry cunt of sorts armed with a missile weapon.

Serious heavy infantry starts showing up by the time you hit East Asia.