It seems even if you had bigger numbers, if your army is attacked on multiple sides you lose. Cant soldiers push from a single point strongly to break it? I am thinking of a historic setting, no thecnologically advanced weapons.
In: 0
Historically speaking (WW2), being surrounded meant three things:
1. No communications with higher levels of command. Most communication was done either via field telephone lines (which were obviously cut if surrounded), or via messengers (which were obviously captured if surrounded). With no way of knowing how the general battle is going, no way to call for help, and no way to get orders, most units went on auto-pilot. This went reasonably well for armies trained in that way (e.g. Germany), but very very badly for more hierarichal command structures (e.g. Soviet Union, France).
2. No supply. This is the reall killer. Most armies had enough food, fuel, ammunitions and spare parts to last them about 1-2 days. After that, normal battles are out of the question. Every shot you fire is one less you have for tomorrow. Every drive with your tank means a little less fuel in the tank for tomorrow. And every snack you munch is one less food item in your reserves for tomorrow. That really get to the soldiers, and means that you cease all unnecessary action, i.e. you become passive. That hands over the initiative to the surrounding army, which is half the way to defeat.
3. No extraction for the wounded or killed. This is a morale killer. If a wound gets you a ticket home for a few weeks, soldiers tend to do their jobs much better than if a wound means dying in a foreign swamp unless being captured by a potentially gruesome enemy. Also, all vehicles and heavy weapons damaged while surrounded are lost immediately. There’s no way to get them back to a repair shop. That multiplies the loss rates for heavy equipment tremendously.
Latest Answers