Why is it such a huge problem to be flanked? I've also read that being attacked from the rear isn't as bad as being flanked, which doesn't make sense either. Does it basically mean being attacked from the side of your position?
What's the big deal about flanking in battle?
- Thread starter Taggart
- Start date
well dude... I'm not a military dude but here goes...
"Flanking an opponent" sounds intimidating. The actual act doesn't do anything but when an enemy knows that they're being "FLANKED?" that means they're in trouble.
Think about it... do you want to be "flanked"??!! It just sounds like its gonna hurt. So i think its a morality issue.
"Flanking an opponent" sounds intimidating. The actual act doesn't do anything but when an enemy knows that they're being "FLANKED?" that means they're in trouble.
Think about it... do you want to be "flanked"??!! It just sounds like its gonna hurt. So i think its a morality issue.
Getting flanked is bad because its very difficult to line up troops to face that direction in a hurry. Attacked from the rear, just turn around...flanked? Now you have to wheel around, and assuming you are still being attacked from the front, your troops are now fighting at a 90% angle. There is crossfire going on, with little chance of the enemy hitting each other.
It means the legion/battalion has just been divided in two because they are fighting the enemy from both sides. It is also a morality issue because while you're fighting on one side, you know that the enemy is chewing the other side away. It also leaves no place to run in case of retreat. You're screwed.
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
No. Flanking someone turns their ranks. Flanking is a big deal because you can't just turn your army 90 degrees. I don't know why it's worse than getting in the rear, but attacking a marching army in the front is pretty much suicide, if you get them by the side you can break their organization and shatter their momentum.
Schadenfreude
Lifer
- Dec 28, 2001
- 11,391
- 3
- 0
Think of it simply like this - direction of the attackers; iif they're surrounding the enemy, their shots are going to be concentrated towards the center while the enemy's attacks will be fanning out/more spread out.
If your soldiers are divided into two sections, one in the front and one in the back, there's a distinct possibility that the crossfire'll frag someone plus the attacking forces are considerably weaker than a single, large force surrounding thes opposition.
If your soldiers are divided into two sections, one in the front and one in the back, there's a distinct possibility that the crossfire'll frag someone plus the attacking forces are considerably weaker than a single, large force surrounding thes opposition.
It's a very big disadvantage in a battle. When troops line up for battle, they typically organize themselves so the enemy is in front. Your infantry and main attack forces are in the front of your group while the support staff are in the rear. When an army is flanked, the enemy is attacking from both sides. The main fighting force is at the front and can't easily divide and pivot to attack to oncoming enemy groups. Usually the time it takes to reorganize and face to opposite fronts is too long and has resulted in heavy losses. It's very bad to be flanked unless you've planned a trap for it.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
its more dangerous to get flanked when you only have single shot weapons and stuff also dangerous when formations mattered.
course they didn't really once accurate weapons were created. but tactics were a tad behind tech during the civil war and so mass slaughter
also dangerous when formations mattered.course they didn't really once accurate weapons were created. but tactics were a tad behind tech during the civil war and so mass slaughter
I can't believe you are serious asking this question, but I will offer a brief answer in case you are.
Imagine a battle (especially a battle back in the 1860s) as a sort of chess game. Your men are able to move in certain ways, and attack in certain directions, but various rules of the game prevent them from moving and attacking any way they want (in real life this is the terrain, weather, and other such factors).
You line up your men based upon the expected tactics of the enemy. If they come at you from the side or an unexpected angle your men may be confused, or they may be physically unable to easily realign to defend the attack.
This is why flanking is used.
In very simple terms, flanking is a way to cause disorganization. Think of it like a football game -- if two big guys get around the offensive line and sack the QB, the play is over.
Imagine a battle (especially a battle back in the 1860s) as a sort of chess game. Your men are able to move in certain ways, and attack in certain directions, but various rules of the game prevent them from moving and attacking any way they want (in real life this is the terrain, weather, and other such factors).
You line up your men based upon the expected tactics of the enemy. If they come at you from the side or an unexpected angle your men may be confused, or they may be physically unable to easily realign to defend the attack.
This is why flanking is used.
In very simple terms, flanking is a way to cause disorganization. Think of it like a football game -- if two big guys get around the offensive line and sack the QB, the play is over.
Its sort of like crossing the "T" in a naval battle.
You get all your guys in a line so that all of them can fire on the enemy position.
However if you get flanked and the enemy is on your side then only the guys on the end of the line nearest the flanking enemies have a clear line of fire.
Now the enemies that have flanked you are probably going to get on line so that they can bring all of thier guns to bear on your position and thier fire will rake up and down your line while you try to reposition your troops.
Here is the quickest graphical representation I could find. Imagine that the yellow guys had flanked the red guys and that most of the red guys were facing the other direction.
http://caesar3.heavengames.com/strategy/battletactics/crosstt.shtml
You get all your guys in a line so that all of them can fire on the enemy position.
However if you get flanked and the enemy is on your side then only the guys on the end of the line nearest the flanking enemies have a clear line of fire.
Now the enemies that have flanked you are probably going to get on line so that they can bring all of thier guns to bear on your position and thier fire will rake up and down your line while you try to reposition your troops.
Here is the quickest graphical representation I could find. Imagine that the yellow guys had flanked the red guys and that most of the red guys were facing the other direction.
http://caesar3.heavengames.com/strategy/battletactics/crosstt.shtml
A flank is a side. SO say your right side. The enemy is moving down the right hand side and attacking. Watch we were soldiers.
This was much more important when the formations were massed - a bullet going from front would have something like three lines of soldiers to hit, while going from flank, it had the entire width of the formation. As the early soldier/rifle combinations were not very accurate in bullet height flight. In this position it was easier to hit the long column of men.
Also in the oold times, shields were carried on the left hand, so the right side was more vulnerable to arrows. This might be the reason why the right flank was the strongest - a flanking action from the right side of the formation had the best protection from the shields.
By the way, even today the commanders stay in the right part of the formations during parades and so on. If you ever wandered... (if someone could confirm that ?)
Calin
Also in the oold times, shields were carried on the left hand, so the right side was more vulnerable to arrows. This might be the reason why the right flank was the strongest - a flanking action from the right side of the formation had the best protection from the shields.
By the way, even today the commanders stay in the right part of the formations during parades and so on. If you ever wandered... (if someone could confirm that ?)
Calin
A good example of this can be found by playing starcraft. Get a group of marines vs a group of zerglings. When the marines are attacked by 'lings in one direction the lings get owned. But when attacked in 2 or more directions the marines have a harder time fighting them off.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,754
- 599
- 126
Its attacking from the side.
You know how in starcraft, you build that long wall of photon cannons to prevent anyone from just walking right in? Well then you also know that the strongest point of defense is somewhere in the middle. So if you're attacking that wall of photon cannons, are you just going to bee line all your guys into the middle of those cannons? No, of course not. You'll suffer heavy losses that way.
But if you attack from where that photon cannon wall begins you severly limit the number of cannons that can be firing on your forces at any given time. You can then effectively 'roll up' the photon cannon wall and destroy it all with a much smaller force than you would need to take it out head on. Starcraft doesn't have friendly fire for the most part, but in real life...having to fire 'over your own ranks' like the cannons would be doing here would likely hurt your own guys as much as the enemy.
But photon cannons are obviously stationary. Lets say that instead of photon cannons, it was a line of hydralisks, side by side, set to Hold This Position. Again, the hydras would make short work of most attacking forces unless they were totally outnumbered...however, if the attacking forces hit from the side they'd only have to fight 4 or 5 hydras at any given point in the battle. Of course the hydras would be moved to bolster the ranks on that side...but that leaves the center weakened as well. Plus, there's going to be a period of disorganization where the hydras are moving into position but not firing. The hydras will be fired on while doing so, (And you'll be swearing "Fvcking get in there and shoot you dumbass!") and if the original hydras are already destroyed by the time backup gets into position, the attack has already been pretty successful.
A good attack strategy here would be to use a two pronged attack, starting with a flank. When the hydras move out of position to stop the flanking strike, the second attack force comes right in the front door. Now not only are they flanked, they're fighting on two fronts and are disorganized.
Regarding rear attacks being better than being flanked, yes they certainly are. If that same group of hydras was somehow attacked from the rear...the lines would simply have to turn around and fire. The ranks are still maintained, the defensive position still has its advantage because the same number of hydras will be firing on an attack force as would be if the force attacked from in front.
Basically, flanking does two things: Its forces the enemy to fight in a position that is unfavorable to them, taking away or limiting the advantage of their defensive position. And it causes disorganization.
But these are all moot points though because EVERYONE knows the best way to defeat photon cannons is with siege tanks or guardians (aka, flying siege tanks)
You know how in starcraft, you build that long wall of photon cannons to prevent anyone from just walking right in? Well then you also know that the strongest point of defense is somewhere in the middle. So if you're attacking that wall of photon cannons, are you just going to bee line all your guys into the middle of those cannons? No, of course not. You'll suffer heavy losses that way.
But if you attack from where that photon cannon wall begins you severly limit the number of cannons that can be firing on your forces at any given time. You can then effectively 'roll up' the photon cannon wall and destroy it all with a much smaller force than you would need to take it out head on. Starcraft doesn't have friendly fire for the most part, but in real life...having to fire 'over your own ranks' like the cannons would be doing here would likely hurt your own guys as much as the enemy.
But photon cannons are obviously stationary. Lets say that instead of photon cannons, it was a line of hydralisks, side by side, set to Hold This Position. Again, the hydras would make short work of most attacking forces unless they were totally outnumbered...however, if the attacking forces hit from the side they'd only have to fight 4 or 5 hydras at any given point in the battle. Of course the hydras would be moved to bolster the ranks on that side...but that leaves the center weakened as well. Plus, there's going to be a period of disorganization where the hydras are moving into position but not firing. The hydras will be fired on while doing so, (And you'll be swearing "Fvcking get in there and shoot you dumbass!") and if the original hydras are already destroyed by the time backup gets into position, the attack has already been pretty successful.
A good attack strategy here would be to use a two pronged attack, starting with a flank. When the hydras move out of position to stop the flanking strike, the second attack force comes right in the front door. Now not only are they flanked, they're fighting on two fronts and are disorganized.
Regarding rear attacks being better than being flanked, yes they certainly are. If that same group of hydras was somehow attacked from the rear...the lines would simply have to turn around and fire. The ranks are still maintained, the defensive position still has its advantage because the same number of hydras will be firing on an attack force as would be if the force attacked from in front.
Basically, flanking does two things: Its forces the enemy to fight in a position that is unfavorable to them, taking away or limiting the advantage of their defensive position. And it causes disorganization.
But these are all moot points though because EVERYONE knows the best way to defeat photon cannons is with siege tanks or guardians (aka, flying siege tanks)
HardcoreRobot
Lifer
- Nov 7, 2000
- 16,403
- 3
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter