Current location - Music Encyclopedia - Chinese History - Why did the battle of winning more with less succeed in history?
Why did the battle of winning more with less succeed in history?
Napoleon and Sun Wu were separated from Wan Li, and their weapons and equipment, military organizations and war forms were quite different. However, the arguments of these two military wizards are almost the same. It can be seen that the military principle they discussed has gone beyond the change of military form to a considerable extent, thus having the nature of objective laws. This is the first military principle I want to discuss: tactically, when there is no qualitative difference between the two sides in equipment training, morale, organization and tactics, the numerical advantage of strength/firepower is the key factor to win the battle, and it is often the decisive factor.

. After the war entered the era of firearms, especially after the era of automatic firearms, the role of the number of people declined. But as long as the "strength" here is changed to "strength/firepower", practice has proved that this law is still effective (future strength refers to strength/firepower).

In response to this rule, a common question is: Since more people can overcome fewer people, why are there some examples of how fewer people can win more? We must look at this problem comprehensively. First of all, the quantity factor is only an important factor that determines the outcome of a battle, not the only factor. In some specific cases, other factors may play a more important role than quantitative factors. Secondly, this example of winning more with less is actually very rare. Compared with many examples of fighting with more wins than less, it can only be regarded as some special cases in law. Third, many so-called battles of "winning more with less" are actually just winning more with less in total strength and still "winning more with less" in tactics. For example, on Napoleon's first Italian expedition, it seems that Napoleon defeated the 80,000 Austrian-Sardinian Coalition forces with 40,000 French troops. But in fact, Napoleon took advantage of the opportunity that the forces of the Osama Coalition were dispersed in three ways and defeated the enemy one by one. 15 days, he fought six battles in a row, and each battle defeated the enemy with absolute superiority. In the end, we won the victory of annihilating the enemy 10000 people and capturing 15000 people. Another example is the famous Quarrying Battle of Song and Jin Dynasties in the history of China. On the surface, Yu's 18000 defeated Yan Yanliang's 400,000 Jin Army in the south and became a typical example of winning more with less. But in fact, in this war, due to the limited number of ships, there may be less than 10,000 people actually crossing the river to fight Song Jun (in this war, Song Jun wiped out nearly 5,000 enemy troops, and all the 8,000 people who fled were killed by Yan Hongliang's whip, which shows that the number is not large). As a matter of fact, Song Jun is the party with absolute superiority in tactics in this war, and it is a typical example of winning more than less. Another example is the battle of Kunyang. On the surface, the outlaw hero defeated the main force of Wang Mang's army of 420,000 people with about 20,000 troops, which was a miraculous battle of winning more with less. But in fact, in the process of defending Kunyang, there are less than 10,000 heroes in the Greenwood, but it is not surprising that there are solid walls that can support for a while. In the fight against the Qing Dynasty, Liu Xiu led 3000 elite soldiers as pioneers, followed by 10000 reinforcements from Wancheng Greenwood, while Wang Yi, commander-in-chief of the Mang Army, underestimated the enemy and only led 10000 men to fight, ordering other battalions not to engage without authorization. In this way, the actual combat power gap between the two sides is not so big. When the outlaw hero won the battle, because one of the commanders escaped (Wang Yi) and the other was killed (Wang Xun), other troops suddenly lost their morale and fell into chaos. In addition, the total rout of Wang Mang's army and the heavy losses suffered in the process of retreat were all caused by strong winds, torrential rains and rising tides. This is also the * * * pattern of many battles in China's history: the striker was defeated and the main force was washed away, resulting in the annihilation of the whole army. Not all the troops were defeated in the battle.

It is more beneficial to the party with the dominant number. Under normal circumstances, the party with the dominant force will lose much less than the enemy when it defeats the enemy. This is mainly caused by the following factors: first, in the process of fighting, the dominant side will lose less. For example, according to Fuxi's theory, if the strength is twice that of the other side, then the loss rate in the battle is only half that of the other side. Another factor, perhaps more important, is that the main achievements in the battle are often obtained in the pursuit process. In this process, the loser will often be unable to continue organized resistance, which will be wiped out by the winner. The chaos caused by rout is often greater than the losses caused by enemy attacks. For example, the battle of Yecheng in Tang Jun's pacifying Anshi Rebellion is an extreme example. In this battle, the sudden change of weather in the fierce battle caused confusion between the warring parties. Tang Jun withdrew south and the rebels fled north. Tang Jun suffered huge losses during the rout because of its large number of troops and poor command system. When Guo Ziyi surrendered to Luoyang, there was a Maneba in the headquarters, only 3,000 left, and 65.438 billion battle armor was lost. There are countless casualties and fugitives in the army. Almost all of Tang Jun's losses in this World War I were due to its own exclusion and trampling. Moreover, a large number of losers, especially the wounded, will be captured, and damaged and other technical equipment that cannot be transported immediately will be seized by the enemy. If the casualty ratio is 1: 3, then more than half of the total casualties (and some permanent disabilities) of the winning side can recover their combat effectiveness in the near future, while the losing side is likely to lose all of them. If the victorious side can supplement some of the prisoners of the defeated side into its own troops, the gap may be even greater. For example, at the end of the Huaihai Campaign, the strength of Sanye was even stronger than at the beginning of the campaign, because a large number of liberation fighters (that is, prisoners of the Kuomintang army) were added. The Kuomintang army lost more than 500 thousand troops, and the main force of the Kuomintang army in the Central Plains was basically lost. (This issue will be further discussed later) It is very rare for the loser to do equal or even more harm to the winner, which usually requires the loser to have a very high fighting will and tactical accomplishment, such as Li Lingjun in the battle between the Western Han Dynasty and Xiongnu Xunjishan, and Shijie Army in the battles between Ming, Jin and Liaoshen.