Talk:List of military tactics

This article was nominated for deletion on December 5, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Intelligence / Technology / Weaponry CL‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

CL

This article has been rated as CL-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Intelligence task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Untitled

A good idea, but someone professional might want to look at this and help us out on it. -Prometheus

I want to put in overwatch (the technique of having some soldiers advance or retreat while others cover them, and then reversing roles) but I don't know where to put it. It's an infantry tactic, but there's no heading for "modern infantry tactics" or anything like that. Isomorphic 19:40, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I suggest putting it in the list alongside "Fighting Withdrawal" and then linking off to a description. It sounds like the same tactic to me. In a fighting withdrawal there are pre-defined routes with units designated to cover the withdrawal route. There is also the concept of "thinning out" which could be described Julianp 01:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Should specific maneuvers (such as a caracole) or formations (e.g. tercios or phalanxes) be included here? (Yes, I know two of those haven't been written yet, I'll get around to them later if noone else does.) -FZ 13:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

tercio

I have created a tercio page. Its a simplistic text so go ahead to elaborate and by all means add phalanx.

Hit-and-run tactics

I'd like to put in hit-and-run tactics, but I'm not sure where it belongs here. It's used both offensively and defensively, but I think it's best described as a deceptive tactic. Agree? --Death phoenix 04:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Trojan Horse

another tactic

Organization?

This page seems to be all over the board... Perhaps organizing it into offensive/defensive/movement/deception tactics?

It looks like someone got rid of the headings, because this aticle used to be organised correctly. I'll look through the history and try to restore it. --Death phoenix 14:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. The headings were eliminated by Muchenhaeser, apparently to incorporate Hull-down into this list. [1]

I have reverted these changes. However, I added Scouting and reconnaissance tactics as another heading and inserted Hull-down. Now that we have this heading, maybe it's time for us to reorganise some of these tactics if they apply to scouting and reconnaissance.--Death phoenix 14:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. I noticed that Reconnaissance is listed under "Offensive tactics", which is really where it belongs. I moved Hull-down to be a sub-listing of Reconnaissance. --Death phoenix 14:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slight Re-org

I've taken it upon myself to add a Small Unit Tactics sections.

This is because (as is discussed above) some tactics, particularly samll units tactics are used both offensively and defensively.

I've moved Hull down and Pepperpotting as well as adding IMTs (which is an article I've just started) which didn;t really fit anywhere here, hence my little re-org. In fact I think the page would probably benefit from a much more dramatic re-organisation, but right now I can't think of the right classifications.

And I've added a principals section. I did this because as noted above many of the phases lsited can be applied to attack and defense and indeed any other phase of warfare and therefore I think they should not be listed under attack or defense.

Reconaissance is an example you don't want to attack without it, and you can defend much better if you can perform recon - its not attack or defense - its is an operation wich can be used to support either.

I hope this dopesn't upset anyone, but I think its clear from the above comments, everyone who cars enough to comment thinks something should be done - I just did it.

If it does then I guess you can just revert it or re-organise it how you'd like it.

Untitled

220.227.165.120 05:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC) In school, we were taught about a tactic used by the Mongols called tulughama, or the standard sweep. The same tactic was successfully used by the Afghans to capture India (Kutubuddin Aibak, 2nd battle of Tarain, 1192) and the Mughals to defeat the Afghans. I can't find it either in here or on the page on Genghis Khan.[reply]

why doesnot?

why does not people put about defensive tactics involving building and diagrams?

NO GRAMMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

additional military tactics

as i was looking down the military tactics list, i noticed that there was some tactics that are missing. It's one of my favorite tactics and i use it often (in games of course... lol). It's called Divide and Conquer. I feel that this tactics should be added to the list. I am open to any comments.

I think this is a strategy rather than a tactic... Maybe Fuzzibloke (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting

The entire "principles" needs rewriting utterly. It is entirely unencyclopediac (however you spell that) and seems to be taken straight from a book by a grizzled general instead of being written by an unbiased encyclopaedia contributor. Half of those, by the writer's own admissions, are not accepted principles and he added them because he liked them. The wording isn't right for an encyclopaedia either. Fuzzibloke (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conventions

While you edit the article, take in consideration the hague conventions and geneva conventions, such as it is written in the article that false flag opportunities are rarely given, however that is not true. False flag operations are possible at any time however, it is in violation of the Geneva Conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.103.133 (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Route choice

Route choice is not in this list, or called something else. Please expand or wikify. --Una Smith (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many of these are actually "tactics"?

Several seem to me to be better described as operational or strategic-level policies or doctrines, e.g:

"Preemptive Strike" is potholed to Preemptive war, which by definition would be strategic level

"Scorched earth" (The linked article describes this as "A scorched earth policy is a military strategy").

"Defence in depth" (Also described as a strategy in the first line of the linked article).

Possibly also Reconnaissance, Blitzkrieg, Carpet bombing, Interdiction, Raiding, Disinformation, and Irregular warfare

62.172.108.24 (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good case. You can always be bold and delete them, especially since they are uncited, or consider moving them to something like the List of military strategies and concepts. If they already exist there, they may be in both because they have both tactical and strategic considerations. In that case, consider adding a couple lines of text next to the entries here, explaining the more tactical aspects (if any). In any case, be bold! :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of military tactics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.com/topics/weather-in-war

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse slope defence

I was surprised to see "reverse slope defence" listed as a deception tactic. Although it can, at times, provide an element of deception, that is not its primary purpose and it seems to be better categorized as a "use of terrain" tactic. Any thoughts? NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a month without comments, so I've gone ahead and moved the item. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Eight classic maneuvers of warfare" section seems dubious

The second paragraph doesn't cite any sources, and has lots of opinionated claims regarding famous uses of each given maneuver. It doesn't really justify why these 8 are the so-called "classic" tactics, either. Noahheaverin (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]