Talk:Pincer movement

message: I doubt envelopment maneuvers have been used in "all wars". It would be an exceedingly hard point to prove, even were it true. I would have thought frontal assaults are exceedingly more common at both tactical and strategic levels. On the other hand, the deliberate aim to gain high ground or retain access to avenues of retreat would be much more common features of both tactics and strategy (and intermediate levels).
Tactical and strategic level implementation of such maneuvers is another issue that is not addressed in the article. While graphically the same on paper, and having certain features in common, there is a great deal of difference between utilizing outflanking positions for enfilade fire, cutting off retreat, facilitating pursuit and so on for tactical advantage, as opposed to occupying ground to your enemy's rear, in order to break his lines of communication at a strategic level. At a tactical level, there is also a great deal of difference between interposing infantry or even artillery between an enemy and his line of supply/retreat, and the more usual use of lighter mobile troops like cavalry or mechanized units.
I think it is a helpful "myth-buster" to point to Hanibal (and the Zulu "horns of the buffalo"), so a casual reader learns envelopment is not a German innovation from WWII, however "all wars" is unproven (unprovable?) overstatement.
I'd love some treatment of the weaknesses and risks associated with this particular tactic/strategy. They are significant and there are many instances of outflanking maneuvers going sour. At a strategic level, that the Prussians rather than Grouchy arrived at Waterloo is a classic example. More significant yet is that time and time again Napoleon played on holding the central ground and defeating more numerous enemies surrounding him, in detail, one by one.
Just some thoughts from someone who knows nothing. Alastair Haines 18:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns

message: It might be worth mentioning the use of a pincer movement as a feint. 
John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough on several occasions attacked the flanks of an enemy to make it look like he was copying Hanibal, and when the enemy thinned out his centre to defend his flanks, Marlborough then attacked through the centre. His most famous victory, the Battle of Blenheim was won that way. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Feint

message: I think the sentence that states Hannible's use of pincer at the battle of Cannae was the first in history should be changed. Yes, Hannible did use double envelopment at Cannae, but it was not the first recorded incident of this military tactic in history; this honor goes to the Athenians at the Battle of Marathon, 490 B.C.E, as recorded by Herodotus. I saw your citation and I cannot locate it to varify its actual validity, but, as a Professor of History at the University of Tennessee, I feel that the statement regarding Hannible's use of double envelopment, in 216 B.C.E., as being the first historically documented account, is up for much dispute. 
 
Feedback on this subject would be more than helpful at resolving this issue - there's definantly more sources needed.
Dr. Owenby (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference Dispute

message: Seems to me there's a possibility of merging this article into the one on Encirclement.  I see Double Pincer as a subsection of the Encirclement article along with Turning Movement. ````chillroy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chillroy (talk • contribs) 23:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge This Article with Encirclement

message: The article cites an American Civil War battle as one of the most well known double envelopment maneuvers in modern warfare. More modern is Zhukov's use of it at Stalingrad in 1942-43 to physically destroy the German Sixth Army and Fourth Panzer group, cripple the Wehrmacht [at least on the Eastern Front] and end the Nazi threat to the USSR. In 1938, Zhukov used the same maneuver against the Imperial Japanese in Manchuria, badly mauling one of the Japanese armies there, thereby permanently terminating the Japanese threat to the USSR in WW2. The significance of this should have it placed in the article, not merely in footnotes, etc. 173.210.125.42 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The mysterious virtual absense of Soviet General G. Zhukov

message: The category should be checked either "Maneuver tactics" or "Military strategy". Seriously, could be considered under tactics AND strategy?Connection (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: The article should explain why the pincer movement works, or at least used to work. As it is now the article does not mention some element of surprise is needed or that armies used to rely heavily on overland communications and supply lines and that the formations of these armies were too rigid to effectively fight in multiple directions at once or quickly turn to face an approaching enemy. Finally ancient armies lacked efficient long distance weaponry (there were archers and javelin throwers but they were a minority and especially the latter couldn't fight well from behind other soldiers), this meant that forcing the enemy army to curl up meant you had to face less of their soldiers at any one time (a circle has the smallest perimeter of any shape). Modern warfare is quite different with its wireless communication, airpower and highly mobile, relatively independent, professional multirole units, all of whom have long range weapons. Anyway, I'm not a historian or military officer so I'm sure someone more versed in the subject can write a better paragraph in the article.89.99.122.33 (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does/did it work?