The art of war.

[Acme]

Mao was a successful military commander after all. When ww2 ended he held a small part of the country and 3x smaller forces. By 1949 he brought all of China under his control.

That has nothing to do with Sun Tzu.

 

I don't dictate what deserves a thread on here or not, ...

The art of war has a Lowest common denominator, which is too outflank your opponet in every way possible.

Yes well, you started the thread as if your point merited a thread. It does not. Your point is neither metaphorically nor actually a substitute for reading the work.

A big fat   so what?

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Never the less the point is valid, factual and therefore true. Your input on the other hand sounds like a monthly problem you have to deal with. Thank you anyway.

[Acme]

Never the less the point is valid, factual and therefore true. Your input on the other hand sounds like a monthly problem you have to deal with. Thank you anyway.

You're welcome of course.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

@ Barfbag.

 

Common sense for tactics of war is correct. lets consider that Sun Tzu oldest copy of the art of war stem from the Han Dynasty 206 B.C.- 220 A.D..

The community of territorial man has been in existence for thousand of years prior to this period historically. Fair then to say that war was old news by the time Sun Tzu wrote the book, also fair to make the leap that warfare was conducted all over the known world, and that these participants were very fimilar with out flanking maneuvors. Thus over time application of tactics would indeed be common sense.

[barfbag]

I think post # 26 said it best. I was trying to be more polite about it but you did not get the hint.

 

You are telling us a book you admit to reading and rereading at least 4 times is not worth the time of day.

 

I think the idea is ridiculous. I think your justification is ridiculous. I think this thread is ridiculous.

 

I think Acme was being polite in post # 26

 

Why on earth would you read a book that you hold in contempt 4 times?

 

Actually... I really do not want to know.

[Delta1212]

Well, now that I know that the essence of war is to outflank the enemy, could you perhaps recommend a reference that would teach me how to accomplish that in different scenarios?

[Dekan]

I've just re-read Sun Tzu, in the translation by Ralph D Sawyer. The thing that struck me was this - Sun doesn't give much consideration to weapons. He assumes that the weapons will be the same on both sides in a battle.

That was true in the pre-scientific past, when Sun wrote his book. Then all the weapons were just Iron-Age swords, spears and bows-and-arrows. Which were all about equally effective for the fighting troops on both sides.

 

But in modern battles, surely the side with the best scientifically-designed weapons may have a decisive advantage.

 

This advantage was not considered by Sun-Tzu, who was ignorant of such modern scientific developments as guns, missiles, tanks and aircraft. So why bother reading him for guidance on modern warfare?

Isn't it like reading an 18th-Century book on caloric-fluid and phlogiston, for guidance on Physics?

[Dr. Funkenstein]

@ Barf

 

I have read many books over a period of 40 years, often the same book over again, but this speaks only of my personal desire to grasp the message of the book in totality, It helps to grow my understanding of the material over time. If my method for grasping the gist of a book is obnoxious to you, then I suggest you do your understanding differently. I have read the bible many times, i have redueced it too baby food, for the spiritual seeking heart.

 

@ Delta

 

The enemy has built these ramparts to abridge the walls surrounding the castle, an outflanking maneuvor would be too have a movable defense like boiling hot oil set aflame at the points where the ramparts interact with the wall, a classic outflanking tatic, the objective being not to allow the wall to be abridged. come up with any scenario which requires an advantage or at best a stalemate, and that would be your out flanking move. on whatever area of the war you need to have an objective of.

[Delta1212]

Thank you, that was very helpful. Do you know of any books that have many such examples with specifics for different situations?

[Dr. Funkenstein]

@ Delta

 

Sorry i do not. However current tatics of current Goverments/Military powers may be of help;

 

The purpose of a scout, most armies have a regiment solely dedicated to recon. Purpose, where they going, what they doing, where they at, what they have with them.

 

Political Espionage, at present Germany is in a twist because the U.S. has been spying on them (Ally). From the U.S. and historical perspective, Germany is too be observed.

 

In the middle east ISIS correctly determined the fighting will of the Iraq army, and invaided the country amoungest the turmoil in Syria, annexed the conquered land and most likely will create a new state in Iraq.

 

All these moves are common sense driven, out flanking tatics.