Is he right Veeky Forums?

Defence of Rorke's Drift lmao senpai

Patton was a brute, a moron and a perpetual grandstander. Even his most famous quotes form around taking definitions by the arm and twisting them until they drop their lunch money.

Meanwhile, Britain, Finland, Soviet Union, the United States, and a number of other defenses were succesfully prosecuted in that conflict of his, but the yellow-bellied sewer eel he is, he would mince every conflict to suit his quip of sophistry.

>whay are Fabian tactics

Patton was a brute that literally didn't understand any form of tactics other than attack so 'lol doesn't exist bro'

In a war full of famous, talentless hacks, I cannot name any general more talentless relative to his fame than Patton.

>abandon city
>enemy takes it
>"meh we wouldn't have gained anything by defending it anyway"

Rommel

Rommel was hands down a better tactician than Patton.

Patton is a moron, who extrapolates his knowledge of armoured warfare onto absolutely everything, even though his ATTACKATTACKATTACK bullshit pointlessly cost numerous lives during his war.

France did have a plan to launch an offensive, their goal was to hold 1940 and possibly in 1941 and then launch an offensive in either 1941 or 1942 after they and the British had built up sufficient military strength for this, and after the Germans had degraded relatively to them. Thus they fell into the second category, they were defending to prepare for an eventual attack.

Last stands make for good stories, but in the end they all burn.

Reducing the enemy force by 1000 is a gain.

And he's also enormously more overrated. Patton is pretty much only a meme in America, wheras Rommel is famous all over the world despite the fact that he was a shitty general who tried to use the one thing he was good at, executing other people's tacitcal innovations, to compensate for a myriad other deficiencies.

As someone who is "talentless relative to his fame" he's more so than Patton.

>what is the Fabian strategy?

>a strategy defined by attacking your enemies flanks and rear guard while it advances doesn't account as attacking because it's done defensively
I don't even know about this board sometimes

>A defensive strategy made specifically to avoid attacking the enemy and wearing them down through attrition is an offensive strategy because some attacking is involved

I feel you, famalam

>made specifically to avoid attacking the enemy
It isn't though. You're supposed to attack the enemy, just not in pitched battle.

Losing a city is worse than losing 10 men. Technically a reduction in losses is not a gain.
Only because it makes later attacks easier.

You don't make advances on the enemy, that's the point. You hit and run on supply lines, you skirmish with the flanks and rear guard then pull back etc. and degrade your enemy's ability to maintain an offensive.

This, while unconventional, is defensive warfare which isn't limited to just holeing yourself up in a fortification and waiting. Defensive doesn't mean not engaging.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_strategies_and_concepts

Look under defensive m8

lol;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Güns

Seems Nikola basically saved Austria from an inevitable fall(the Emperor retreated his forces to Bavaria and abandoned Vienna), sounds pretty fucking successful to me.

>defensive attacking isn't attacking
Бpaвo

>a defensive strategy isn't defensive because attacking is involved

>a defensive strategy doesn't involve attacking because it's defensive

Well Constantinople held attack after attack until they invented an entire new technology for its walls, gunpowder and cannons.

The ottoman sultan had an enormous cannon made for it.

This shit was made in the 4th century by the romans, and only fell more than a thousand years later, the entire american history repeated 4 times.

>implying the Byzantine army just sitting behind those walls for hundreds of years waiting for their numerous enemies to concede
that's not how you win wars. You have to go on an offensive at some point or you'll never force the enemy to peace out

Not him, but explain the Dutch wars of Independence then.

this

I saw in a documentary that he is the cause of the iron curtain by trying to beat his rival to Berlin

>that he is the cause of the iron curtain
Yeah, it totally wasn't Churchill and the Percentages agreement.

Winter war and russia in 1812 seems prety defensive

Why doesn't it?

Remember that one time Napoleon lost everything because the Russians didn't attack him?

It was fighting against men running at you with spears and sticks. If you have artillery and tanks striking you, you are gonna do something.

Nope.

Must times they applied diplomatic counter attacks.