Opposing Combat Philosophies: Difference between revisions
m
Reverted edits by InternetArchiveBot (talk) to last revision by Looney Toons
Jason taylor (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
m (Reverted edits by InternetArchiveBot (talk) to last revision by Looney Toons) Tag: Rollback |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 8:
See also [[Ace Pilot]], which includes a section on various piloting styles.
{{examples}}▼
▲{{examples}}
== Anime & Manga ==
* In the world of ''[[Lyrical Nanoha]]'', Midchildian tactics generally focus on defensive barriers and long range [[Beam Spam]], while the Belkan Knights first introduced in Season 2 prefer to get up close and personal with the enemy to overwhelm them with superior strength and aggresion. The heroes eventually incorporate both approaches.
Line 21:
* ''[[Kenichi: The Mightiest Disciple]]'' has this in two forms. The first is between fighting styles. "Dou"-type martial artists fuel their skills using aggressive emotions like rage, while "Sei"-types usually stay calm and collected. Despite what that may sound like, Dou-types [[Dark Is Not Evil|no more or less likely to be evil]] than a Sei-type [[Light Is Not Good|is to be good]].
** Later on, another set of opposing philosophies appear in the forms of Katsujin-ken and Satsujin-ken. The former, as practiced by Kenichi and his masters, is to fight without taking life if at all possible. The latter are of the belief that martial arts are meant to be used for killing one's opponents. Unlike the above, this ''does'' tend to mark the line between Good and Evil in the series.
== Fan Works ==
* Often seen in ''[[Harry Potter]]'' fanfiction, where Dumbledore is frequently cast as an ''extreme'' proponent of the "better to die than to kill" school of thought who opposes (or even actively sabotages) efforts to allow the Order of Phoenix, the Aurors or British wizards in general to use lethal force against the Death Eaters. To be fair, this does seem to be the philosophy he has in [[Canon]], but fan writers have been known to turn it [[Up to Eleven]].
Line 66 ⟶ 70:
* The German Army's mastery of maneuver warfare (swift, coordinated, ''simultaneous'' assault with infantry, artillery, and air power) was its greatest advantage at the start of [[World War II]]. The allied forces, prepared only for the attrition warfare tactics of [[World War I]], were left beaten, bloody, and desperate to catch up during the opening years of the war.
**After awhile though the British focused on a strategy of emphasizing naval supremacy, imperial intrigue, subversion and what John Keegan once called,"Attrition by Attenuation.
This means roughly getting the enemy to overstretch rather then outlasting a massive bloodfest; Risk players will remember the difference which is between two big piles running into each other and waiting until there is only one army in each province. This strategy in fact resembled the [[Napoleonic Wars]] more then [[World War I]] and depended on the inherent efficiency of maritime transport.
Some theorists at the time suggested the railroads had made this strategy obsolete but that proved not to be the case not least because a railway schedule can be ripped up by a raiding party tearing up tracks while ships have no need for tracks and if the ships themselves can be hit by raiders, so can the trains. Perhaps more to the point, railways cannot penetrate enemy territory very well because the enemy can always destroy or mine his tracks as he retreats or simply build them to a different gauge in the first place, like Russia did. Whereas ships having no need for tracks can go wherever there is water deep enough for them.
***The three main allies in [[World War 2]] had mutually opposing combat philosophies and had to make compromises to get anything like coordination. The Russian's combat philosophy was set for it as a war of attrition in Eastern Europe by the fact that it was faced with invasion and Hitler's atrocious policies left [[Violence Is the Only Option|no option even unconditional surrender]] besides the most horrible war ever fought. Russians often accused Americans and British of [[Let's You and Him Fight|fighting the war with Russian blood]] and one can understand this feeling from ordinary Russians who did take most of the casualties of the war but it [[Moral Myopia|comes off ill]] from Stalin who had been trying to do exactly the same thing in the early stages of the war(not to mention seeking a jackel's share in Eastern Europe) and then tried to hurry up the Overlord invasion by using the [[Wounded Gazelle Gambit|Americans and Britishers conscience]] as a political weapon. Furthermore Russia seems not to have understood naval warfare or how difficult it was to get a substantial army ashore in Europe.America focused intensely on an almost Teutonic dedication to finding the Schwerpunkt(decisive point in German)and begrudged every asset sent to what it considered a secondary theater or diversion, or more disparagingly a "sideshow." Britain as mentioned above urged investing more in such secondary theaters partly from emotional reactions-it had a Kiplingesque romanticism about sideshows and a tradition going back to Elizabeth I not to mention fear of [[Shell-Shocked Veteran|fear of another Somme]]-but also partly because it thought good could come from such investments and in any event a landing in France was impossible at the time.
▲ Americans had to be honest something of a John Wayne syndrome and accused the British of either not wanting to fight or fighting just for their sordid Imperial interests. The British on the other hand felt that they were just wanting to fight smart. Basically the Brits thought they were clever and the Yanks thought the Brits to clever by half. Conversely Americans thought they were focused and realistic and British thought Americans bullheaded.
Somehow or other compromises were made. For the most part Russia just fought it's own war and there were few joint ops. Between America and Britain the compromise was roughly to keep the pressure on steadily in the British style and then shift as soon as resources were amassed for a massive invasion of France.
* The Crusades has examples of this. The Europeans prefer heavily armored knights, while the Arabs and Turks prefer lightly armored but still heavily armed horsemen. In terrains with not much room to maneuver the knights are deadly, but in open terrain, especially at the desert, the light horsemen can wreak more damage.
Line 80 ⟶ 84:
* The opposing ground forces during the [[Cold War]] in Germany. NATO's philosophy was to have individually highly capable, but expensive chess pieces whose loss could be crippling. The Soviet/Warsaw Pact, on the other hand by comparison, was deliberately limiting the capability, initiative and equipment of each individual chess piece, and instead investing a large percentage of its effort in raising a breed of grand masters who could play chess well, understanding and accepting the natural limitations of each piece. In other words, a rank of bishops and rooks against three or four ranks of pawns.
* Martial Arts is often divided into [[wikipedia:Hard and soft (martial arts)|"Hard" and "Soft"]] categories; usually accepted as using force directly or redirecting an opponent's force.
* US Admirals Spruance and Halsey had differing philosophies with Spruance normally being more cautious and Halsey more aggressive. Halsey was able to sanitize Formosa of enemy air power before the Second Phillipines Campaign but on the other hand he was out of place at Leyte Gulf. On the other hand, Spruance in the two notable times he refused pursuit might have been justified for at Midway there were still large forces waiting in a potential ambush while at the Marianas, covering the invasion force may have saved lives, the Japanese naval air force was crippled in any event, and first class airstops on Saipan/Guam/Tinian would blanket the area and make sure that the Japanese navy would never come back.
{{reflist}}
| |||