On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:54:52 -0500 (EST), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Which is exactly why I specified * battlefield * tactics...
> > and yes, weapons technology is a big reason for changing
> > tactics, battlefield or otherwise.
>
> The basic principles recommended to be applied for engaging an enemy
^^^^^^^^^^
> in warfare have remained virtually unchamged since the publication
> of Sun Tsu's "The Art of War" in the 5th Century BC.
Which is exactly why I used the word "tactics" rather than
the word you use, "principles."
Tactics are not principles. Principles are not tactics.
Tactics are often derived FROM principles however.
Webster:
tactic, n.
1 : a device for accomplishing an end
2 : a method of employing forces in combat
principle, n.
1 a : a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or
assumption
b (1) : a rule or code of conduct
(2) : habitual devotion to right principles <a man of principle>
Now... I seriously doubt you will "employ forces in
combat" against scud missiles in the same way you will
"employ forces in combat" against a wall of archers.
Principles remain the same. Tactics do not.
> Sun Tsu's book is cited as one of the primary sources from which the
> US Army has derived the now current US military doctrine known as
> "The Nine Principles of War".
^^^^^^^^^^
Principles are not the same as tactics.
> Take a look at
>
> http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/cctsp/155-h-0197/155-h-0197.ppt
> Apply the Principles of War During Mission Planning
^^^^^^^^^^
Principles are not tactics.
> This is an official US military training document which cites historic
> examples of battles fought by Civil War generals on both sides of the war
> as best illustrating the use of these principles
^^^^^^^^^^
Principles != tactics.
> Also see
>
> http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/fm1005/principles.php3
> Digital Attic - Warfare: FM 100-5: The Principles of War
> (U.S. Army, Field Manual 100-5, 1..) ^^^^^^^^^^
And once again... Principles are different than tactics.
> For interesting info on Sun Tzu's book and how it is still being
> consulted by modern day military experts see
>
> http://www.mdlake.net/0105/15.html
I especially enjoyed his recommendations for tactical use
of SAMs against the enemy Cobras. They never saw it coming.
His use of satellite reconaissance was brilliantly
unexpected, but I must admit I'm a bit hazy on exactly what
he was thinking in the use of his tactical nuclear weapons.
> According to these sources there is nothing saying that evolving
> weapons technology is a reason for changing tactics, battlefield or
> otherwise.
Alright then. Have it your way. You'd use the same
weapons (or "devices," see Webster again) against an armored
cavalry that you'd use against a mounted cavalry.
AR
--
Steve Ackman
http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?)
http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff)
