Forget swarming, it’s our RoEs, and the laws of war that underpin them, that are the

[Fuchs]

You don't confuse "war" and "battle", do you?

It'll be difficult to find battles with little killing in history books because "much killing" is pretty much the historian's definition of a battle.
I recall a late Western Roman battle with less than 300 Roman KIA and not terribly much barbarian KIA, though. Just can't name it now. The battle was decisive in the war with losses of less than 5%.

Another Roman example might be more useful; Caesar did not fight all Gaul armies that faced his. Sometimes he simply avoided a battle and waited till the superior enemy army disintegrated due to inferior logistics. He defeated and discouraged several tribes like that.

There were also wars in the 18th century without any battle. The Austrians had a Marshal who followed the indirect approach of maneuvering the enemy out of the lad he was meant to occupy. He threatened the lines of communication and made the enemy's position in the contested territory untenable.

The German invasion of Denmark in 1940 killed less than a hundred Danes and was the quickest war ever (officially no war, though).

The German-Bulgarian invasion of Yugoslavia was finished in a mere 11 days, won by preventing a mobilisation and keeping the Yugoslavians from organising a defence. One motorised infantry regiment moving through the whole of Yugoslavia at the tip of the spear and had not a single KIA.

[William F. Owen]

You don't confuse "war" and "battle", do you?

No I do not. I am less pedantic when it comes to "battle" and "warfare."

Another Roman example might be more useful; Caesar did not fight all Gaul armies that faced his. Sometimes he simply avoided a battle and waited till the superior enemy army disintegrated due to inferior logistics. He defeated and discouraged several tribes like that.

And? What about the famous "battle" of Worcester in 1405, where the English forces the Welsh to quit the field, without anyone being killed.

What many ignore was that only occurred because the English had the ability to kill the Welsh if the Welsh tried to attack, and the English didn't need to attack the Welsh - again, so what?

The German invasion of Denmark in 1940 killed less than a hundred Danes and was the quickest war ever (officially no war, though).

So the Danes quit without a fight? Why? Because if they didn't the Germans would have basically killed more than they could stand.

You win by being focussed on killing. Very rarely you may not have to kill. So what? I am as dismissive as Clausewitz and Foch of the idea you can reliably win any armed conflict without visiting very sever harm or threat there of, upon the enemy.

[Fuchs]

That assertion doesn't stand up to historical tests, though.

The focus on killing and lethality blinds you for other options.
* political
* quick strikes that drastically reduce the prospects of continued resistance before major fighting begins
* taking away the economic base for the war effort
just to name a few.

It's not even helpful for the understanding of the instances when armies were simply overpowered because it guides the attention towards the fighting itself.


You do not always win by focusing on killing, and it's not even always the best route. In fact, sometimes the best path in war isn't even to strive for victory.

The 1940 France campaign was certainly one of the best ever and it wasn't focused on killing at all. In fact, the winners would have been highly content if they had been able to pull off the first phase with much less violence.
The victory came through overwhelming power achieved by degrading the logistical support of a great part of the enemy to almost zero.
Killing was uninteresting. Those who were in pursuit of killing and lethality failed badly. They marched forward for a meeting engagement and ran into a trap.


The focus on killing and lethality is primitive, simplistic and misleading.

Someone who goes directly for the kill (because he focuses on the same) will way too often enter a trap laid by a smarter, more versatile enemy.
There's a reason why wars aren't short and made up of one or few quick battles only. Military strategy and operational art need to strive for much more than mere killing - a focus on it would dumb both down and lead to failure unless the strength ratio was very favourable from the beginning.

Sure, killing and lethality make up a big chunk of warfare, but they're nevertheless merely two instruments of the orchestra and overemphasizing them leads to a poor performance.

[William F. Owen]

The focus on killing and lethality blinds you for other options.

Wrong. It does not. I am not stupid.

* political

That's politics. Not warfare.

* quick strikes that drastically reduce the prospects of continued resistance before major fighting begins

Clever killing and destruction is always good.

* taking away the economic base for the war effort
just to name a few.

...and? Do you mean attacking economic targets via military means?

The focus on killing and lethality is primitive, simplistic and misleading.

No it is not. Any focus on killing for killing's sake is stupid. That is not what I am talking about.

I am talking about killing as being instrumental. I am not suggesting you seek engagements irrelevant to the strategic purpose. You do not get to conduct envelopment's and encirclements unless you have real combat power, and the aim of such manoeuvre should be destroy the enemy. If the enemy gives up before you do that, then great.

My focus is on breaking will. The best way to that is to kill and destroy. If you are very violent and shocking, you may have to kill very few folks to gain your political end state.

The huge fallacies at the heart of MW, EBO and Liddell-Harts almost criminally stupid "indirect approach" is the idea that you should seek to avoid battle and not the verity that the aim is to seek battle under the most advantageous conditions and reap high Loss-exchange-ratios.

Armed forces deliver their strategic objective via arms.