Talk:List of military tactics

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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? --Deathphoenix 04:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hit-and-run tactics 

message: 220.227.165.120 05:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  additional military tactics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rewriting 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conventions 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How many of these are actually "tactics"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's been a month without comments, so I've gone ahead and moved the item.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverse slope defence