Talk:Defeat in detail

message: Can anyone provide some tactical examples that worked?  For the descriptions as a useful tactic, having two losing sides as the only tactical users seems odd.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.116.3 (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that fits. It's basically just concentration of fire. In theory, one might use the Brecourt Manor Assault as an example of it in smal-unit tactics, since the small American command attacked each German gun position separately. The idea being that despite having a smaller force, in each encounter, by meeting only a portion of the enemy force, you outnumber them in each encounter. --Habap (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: Is it really needed to have this part in the article? Defeat in detail is a often used tactic in all sorts of games, be it board games, first person shooters, combat flight sims and, of course, strategy games. And having an elaborate explanation on how it is used in RPGs seems rather odd.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.68.101.68 (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The section did not accurately describe 'defeat in detail' anyway - it described focus firing, where, in a fight against multiple opponents, everyone concentrates on one at a time rather than wearing them all down evenly. Defeat in detail is what Napoleon did: concentrate your force rapidly and repeatedly against individual components of the enemy force, comprehensively defeating them piecemeal rather than in a single engagement. The RPG example has more in common with the Kursk example above, which is also not defeat in detail.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.150.69 (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding the Role Playing Game segment 

message: I think this quote sums it up: 
"When I am Ten against Hundred, I attack Ten against One, a Hunderd time." 
Shall we include it? 
--85.165.215.245 (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mao Zedong quote 

message: I take issue with the following portion of the article:
"Defending units on opposite sides of physical barriers such as hills, forests or rivers (but see the "reverse slope defence", now rendered obsolete by manned and unmanned aircraft, for a historically-attested deliberate tactic)."
The above statement assumes the attacker has air superiority over the defender. If a defender was able to maintain an effective air defense, I see no reason why the tactic still wouldn't provide the defender effective protection from enemy artillery fire.
The Wikipedia article on "reverse slope defense" even sites the 1991 Battle of 73 Easting as an example of an effective use of the tactic. Surely if the tactic was valid in the 1991 Gulf War, which saw extensive use of modern fighter/bomber aircraft and precision munitions, then it should still be considered valid today.
From the Wikipedia article on "Reverse Slope Defense":
"In the 1991 Battle of 73 Easting, M1A1 tanks of Eagle Troop led by Captain McMaster crested a hill and surprised an Iraqi tank company set up in a reverse slope defence on the 70 Easting. They immediately engaged the Iraqi tanks and destroyed the company." MCQknight (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Reverse Slope Defense" really obsolete? 

message: Is this term actually used for military tactics? I know the political version of it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule 88.86.132.119 (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  divide and conquer