Noel: Well, all force and no style, just like usual, huh?Some folks think that offense is the best defense; if you kill the other guy, defense is irrelevant. On the other hand, if you plan to fight tomorrow, or the day after that, you'd better have some contingency plans in place to protect your attackers, heal the wounded, and prepare for a possible retreat. Which do you go with? When you've got two or more groups with two or more ways of winning the battle, you've got Opposing Combat Philosophies. One general prefers to obliterate the enemy with long range bombardment, while the other prefers to send in the infantry to really silence the other side. Or, in a fantasy setting, the choice between magic, which is astoundingly powerful but takes decades to perfect, or melee combat, which is easier and faster to master. These differing philosophies can be found between the heroes and the villians, or between opposing factions on the same side. See also Ace Pilot, which includes a section on various piloting styles, as well as Force And Finesse and Soldier vs. Warrior. Faction Calculus and A Commander Is You are both about ways that video games often quantify Opposing Combat Philosophies in terms of game mechanics.
Sophia: You seemed to be handling the unnecessary acrobatics quite well on your own.
Sophia: You seemed to be handling the unnecessary acrobatics quite well on your own.
open/close all folders
Anime & Manga
- In the world of Lyrical Nanoha, Midchildian tactics generally focus on defensive barriers and long range Beam Spam, while the Belkan Knights first introduced in Season 2 prefer to get up close and personal with the enemy to overwhelm them with superior strength and aggresion. The heroes eventually incorporate both approaches.
- Similar to many fantasy works, the evil Marmo hordes of Record of Lodoss War are focused entirely on offense, with most goblins and werewolves going into battle with nothing but a dagger, scythe, or similar villian weapon. On the other hand, the Holy Knights of Valis routinely carry shields into battle, and Parn's party alone has 3 people capable of healing: Deedlit the High Elf, Slayn the Wizard, and Etoh the Cleric.
- In Claymore, as illustrated by the page quote, Noel uses her agility and She-Fu, while her rival Sophia prefers a brute force approach.
- A broader division is between Defensive Warriors who have superior regeneration abilities and Offensive Warriors who can develop devastating special attacks like Jean's Drill Sword or Flora's Windcutter. In universe it has been theorised that the mentality of the Warrior in question is what determines their type; those who win by surviving against all odds vs those who simply cut the enemy down to ensure victory.
- Negi is asked to decide between combat philosophies at least twice so far: first between being a standard battle-mage who relies on his partners to run interference, giving him time to chant devastating attack spells, or a Magical Swordsman, who enters the fray directly. He chooses the latter, like his father before him. Later, he has to choose between The Power of Friendship, again like his father, or The Dark Side as taught by his Master. He goes with the dark side.
- Gundam: In stories set during the One Year War, The Federation utilizes general-purpose technology, while Zeon's units tend to be specialized for the terrain they are deployed in.
- During the Golden Age arc of Berserk the nations of Midland and Chuder/Tudor had different armies. Chuder seemed to favor brawny Mighty Glacier units that were themed after huge animals, Black Rams, Whale Corps, Holy Purple Rhino Knights. While Midland preferred lightning fast units, most successfully the Band of the Hawk, and had white everything. White Dragons, White Tigers ect.
- Kenichi: The Mightiest Disciple has this in two forms. The first is between fighting styles. "Dou"-type martial artists fuel their skills using aggressive emotions like rage, while "Sei"-types usually stay calm and collected. Despite what that may sound like, Dou-types no more or less likely to be evil than a Sei-type is to be good.
- Later on, another set of opposing philosophies appear in the forms of Katsujin-ken and Satsujin-ken. The former, as practiced by Kenichi and his masters, is to fight without taking life if at all possible. The latter are of the belief that martial arts are meant to be used for killing one's opponents. Unlike the above, this does tend to mark the line between Good and Evil in the series.
- Later on it turns out a third path exist. The way of Gedou. Unlike Satsujinken fighters who believe the most authentic meaning of martial arts is to kill opponents to prove martial superiority, those who walk the path of Gedou seem to just fight and fight for the pure sake of it, until they themselves are destroyed.
- In Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, Draco Malfoy of the Dragon Army, at least in the beginning, uses the command philosophy of command push (all orders come from the top, and subordinates are trained to carry out orders efficiently without questioning them, but this structure tends to be inflexible if the commander is out of touch with the situation). In contrast, Harry James Potter-Evan-Verres of the Chaos Legion uses some elements of recon pull (subordinates are allowed to use initiative to do what they think is right for their situation, and the commander acts as coordinator who concentrates on the big picture).
- In Weaver Nine, the PRT and Weaver's Society practice this on the strategic level with regards to Endbringer fights. The PRT are focused on preserving civilian lives and infrastructure, even if it means prioritising defense over actually hurting the Endbringer, and will throw capes into the grinder to do so; the Society focuses on trying to kill the Endbringer and preserving cape lives, especially its own citizens', in order to build a core of experience and reliable anti-Endbringer strategies, and will let civilians and infrastructure burn if need be.
- The Jedi and Sith orders from Star Wars. While the Martial Pacifist Jedi prefer to resolve conflicts without fighting if possible and try not to kill their opponents if they can avoid it - though they shouldn't be underestimated, since they are fully prepared to kill if they need to - the Sith are The Unfettered and won't hesitate to attack right away and don't care if they slaughter innocents to achieve their goals.
- In the Drizzt novels, Entreri believes in fighting without emotion, while Drizzt thinks his passion improves his fighting. Entreri gets way too into proving he's right, going to enormous trouble to set up a death match between them after several fights in which outside factors interfered with the result, and completely loses control of his anger during the fight. Drizzt meanwhile, is mostly just annoyed that he won't let it go, and after beating him points out that this fight didn't prove which of their styles was better either.
- An ongoing political struggle in the early Honor Harrington books pits Honor, a student of the traditional tactical school of thought, up against the Juene Ecole, an out-of-touch group associated with many Strawman Political characters, which thinks that they can use small warships equipped with various super weapons to change the way battles are fought. As the books go on, however, and some new developments in missile design and ship powerplants mature, Honor ends up allying herself with them, using their ideas to complement the traditional tactical school of thought, rather than trying to replace it entirely. Later books also point out that the major problem with the Juene Ecole was that some members tried pushing their new developments into the fleet before they were ready, which is why said developments tended to fall short of expectations when in the field.
- On a larger scale, the conflict between the Star Kingdom of Manticore and the People's Republic of Haven pits Manticore's smaller fleet of technologically advanced ships (with rigorously trained volunteer crews) against Haven's much larger fleet of more outdated ships. Haven also has quite a bit more territory to protect (and control, due to civil unrest), and a much more limited logistical capability, which limits their ability to use their greater numbers to project force as effectively as Manticore can. Later books take this Up to Eleven with the Grand Alliance of Manticore and Haven going up against the monolithic but obsolescent forces of the Solarian League.
- In Belisarius Series, each political power has its own combat philosophy. The Persians are armored horsemen supported by horse archers meant for wide plains. The Romans have this too but they rely more on technology. The Axumites emphasize naval boarding parties and so have little room for tactics and stress close-combat ferocity. The Rajputs are a little like the Persians but spend more time in broken terrain. They are great cavalrymen and swordsmen and definitely Born in the Saddle. The Marathas stress Hit And Run tactics. The Kushans tend to be a Jack-of-All-Trades, though they seem to spend more time on foot then on horseback. The Malwa tactics are primitive and based more on the need to keep their people under their thumb then to fight their enemies; they rely chiefly on reserves and dakka; when they need actual military prowess it is usually the Rajputs and the Kushans that provide it.
- A variation in The Lost Fleet series. By the time Captain John "Black Jack" Geary is awoken from his 100-year Human Popsicle state, the Forever War the start of which he witnessed has made both sides virtually identical. Both fleets are full of Glory Seekers who put more emphasis on fast, unarmored ships due to the fact that they can close with the enemy faster instead of the Mighty Glacier battleships, which they consider to be postings for cowards. The prevailing tactical doctrine is that each ship commander's "fighting spirit" will determine victory or defeat with fleet tactics being largely nonexistent. Geary strives to return to the "old ways" of fighting battles that relies less on individual honor and more on fighting smart. Formations are key. However, many of the ship's commanders prefer their way of fighting and are reluctant to adopt Geary's methods. Pretty soon, he realizes that his changes result in the fleet being severely undersupplied, as the computer systems in charge of supply prioritization are designed with a different combat philosophy in mind. Basically, under Geary, ships maneuver a lot more (i.e. more fuel cells needed) and more ships survive (i.e. more repair parts needed). The system is reprogrammed after this, but lack of fuel cells is a major concern until the fleet returns.
- Boxers can be very broadly divided into 3 types: out-fighters, swarmers, and brawlers. Out-fighters are long range punchers who use distancing and strategy to control the fight. Swarmers are short range fighters who prefer to get into point-blank range and unload with torrents of body blows and uppercuts. Finally, brawlers are power punchers who rely on sheer physical strength to devastate their opponents, often at the expense of speed and skill. Historical heavyweight examples are Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier and George Foreman, respectively.
- The Warhammer 40,000 Universe is large enough to accomodate a dozen or more tactical styles, but the most obviously opposed systems are between the Tau Empire, which prefers Wave Motion Gun style attacks from astronomical distances, and the Orks who specialize in getting within 100 meters and opening a can of More Dakka.
- Within the Tau there are two main philosophies, Kauyon or Patient Hunter (guerilla tactics and ambush) and Mont'ka or Killing Blow (breaking the enemy with a massive strike against their leadership or other critical target). The two are meant to work together, but individual Commanders specialize.
- The forces of Chaos are this to a T (or a +). Tzeentchians manipulate the enemy and their allies, Khornates get into combat as fast as possible and don't care who they kill, Nurglites take forever to get anywhere but just won't die, Slaaneshi are Combat Sadomasochists... and all four hate the other three and will happily attack each other if it can mess up their plans.
- Same goes for its counterpart Warhammer Fantasy ranging from armies with solid blocks and no ranged attacks except magic (Chaos) to armies consisting nearly exclusively out of skirmishers (Woodelves).
- But next to that there is also a very philosophical divide between the fluff-players, who build their armies to reflect the setting and emphasize the quirks of their specific army, perhaps with certain self-imposed limitations, and the so-called "power gamers" who only focus on maximizing the win chances of their army without much care for the setting. Can also been found in Warhammer 40,000. Differs from normal Munchkins that it is a actual philosophical question how to prioritize winning in the battle.
- In BattleTech, the factional combat philosophies weren't that sharply distinct when it was simply the Great Houses fighting. When the Clans came, though, their philosophy favored individual actions and the glory of single combat with their foes, so whole units would break down to a dozen one on one battles... whereas the Inner Sphere forces tended to be more professional and pragmatic and would do 'dishonorable' things like having an entire company of 'Mechs focus their fire. The Clans technological advantage gave them the upper hand despite their silly code of honor, until the Inner Sphere commanders began to catch on and exploit it.
- In Traveler Intersteller Wars, the Terrans focus on maneuver and the Vilani on their numbers and logictic capability. However the Vilani underestimate the Terran threat and the Terrans are able to gain resources by conquest and economic hegemony over vast areas of the Vilani Empire until they have an even match.
- In Final Fantasy XIII, there is something of an unspoken difference in combat styles between the two warring factions. Fighters originating from Cocoon, such as Sazh, Hope, and the female PSICOM operatives, focus on buffing allies first, then going into battle. On the other hand, fighters from Gran Pulse, namely Fang and Vanille, have natural Saboteur capabilities for weakening enemies before applying the killing blow. The reasons why you would need to weaken opponents first become apparent once you visit the lowerworld and have to deal with brutally powerful behemoths, wyverns, and city-sized Adamantoises.
- FreeSpace and its sequel exemplify this. Terran ships have strong hulls, average shields, and a strong secondary (missile) loadout, with relatively low maneuverability, speed, and an average primary (energy-based) loadout. Vasudan ships are very fast and agile, but have weak hulls, weaker shields, and relatively weak but fast-to-fire weapons. Shivan ships are fast, agile, and have strong primary weapons, but relatively weak missiles and paper-thin hulls. To compensate, the Shivans have the strongest shields in the game. Terran and Vasudan capital ships tend have their weapons spread around so they have coverage from any angle; Shivan's put almost all the guns in the front to better capitalize on their favored super-aggressive tactics and the odd Hyperspeed Ambush.
- Gallente ships in EVE Online are designed around their close-in high risk, high damage fighting philosophy. Their old enemies, the Caldari design their ships around long range, low-risk sniper tactics.
- Real-Time Strategy games with a clear avoidance of cosmetically identical sides (and possibly, Separate, but Identical) have a general tendency to pit two or more sides with radically different methods of winning (and losing) against each other, owing much to a theoretically ideal Faction Calculus. Of course, this mentality is used in the name of the Rule of Fun with plenty of variation to spare.
- Exemplified well by Starcraft, where the Protoss field extremely expensive, but extremely capable units, the Zerg named one of the most famous RTS Tropes of all time, and the Terrans fall flexibly in-between.
- Starcraft II: In Wings Of Liberty, you get to choose between several upgrades (can't have both) that are set for the rest of the campaign. Problem is that in most cases one upgrade blows the other out of the water (Science Vessel vs Raven, Orbital Command vs Planetary Fortress, bunker that can fight back vs bunker with extra life...). Basically, if the Terrans have it in Heart of the Swarm, it's the one you should have taken in Wings Of Liberty.
- In Heart of the Swarm, zerg evolutions can be divided into those that focus on brute force (ultralisks that do continuous area damage, tougher jumping zerglings, roaches that Spawn Broodlings, banelings that make little banelings on death, mutalisks that turn into flying artillery) and those with a more subtle but equally powerful approach (resurrecting ulralisks, instaspawning triple zerglings, roaches that slow the enemy, jumping banelings, mutalisks that turn into flying casters that can prevent enemies from attacking/)
- Command & Conquer games makes it obvious that differing war doctrines is its bread and butter for rich gameplay. The Allied Nations, Scrin and USA employ precision weapons and strong air power, China, GDI and Soviet Union use lots of tanks, while GLA, Japan, Nod and Yuri utilise gimmicks, speed and versatility.
- Homeworld and its sequels use opposing combat philosophies to varying degrees.
- Homeworld would certainly be this way, assuming that you put Kushan (or Taiidan) on one side, the Turanic Raiders on a another and the Kadeshi on yet another. The first is a complete military fleet whose composition resembles that of a modern navy, the second is a bandit race that is reminiscent of today's guerillas and the third is what a religious, isolationist cult of fully-armed but fragile men would look like. On a player faction scale, the Kushan and Taiidan only vary through special units: the Kushan choose offensive invisibility cloaks and attack drones while the Taiidan choose defensive antibullet deflector shields and defense lasers.
- In Homeworld 2 the Hiigaran race tends to field smaller numbers of individually more capable, flexible and expensive spaceships, and almost all of their ships have some sort of weapon mounted, even on auxiliary ships that really are not meant for direct combat. Their larger ships are even capable of handling almost every combat role by themselves, at least in small engagements. Their opponents the Vagyr, on the other hand, have larger groups of cheap ships which are each specifically meant for one narrow task, relying on outnumbering the enemy and using combinations of different ship and squadron types to meet specific tactical needs.
- Homeworld: Cataclysm has the most variety between the two playable factions. On one hand, the Hiigaran Kiith Somtaaw use generous firepower, Suicide Attack holographic projectors and small Attack Drones while the Beast resort to Invisibility Cloaks and much, much low-quality Power Copying from its sources (which in multiplayer, is only the Somtaaw). The unplayable factions largely takes their doctrines from the original Homeworld's.
- Dawn of War: The Tau can choose between the Kau'yon and Mont'ka (see above) strategies. The former gives them upgrades that increase their range and health and tanky Kroot units, the latter gives them their horrifying Hammerhead tanks and Crisis jumpsuits. Of course when you fight their strongholds they get both.
- Ground Control features the highly-advanced Order of the New Dawn squaring off against the Crayven Corporation. The Order is utilizing brand-new tech, uncluding Energy Weapons and Hover Tanks, while Crayven utilizes tried-and-true treaded tanks and ballistic weapons. The Order's hoverdynes are good for outmaneuvering the enemy to bring their better firepower to bear on the lightly-armored sides and rear, while Crayven's terradynes have much thicker armor that can take a punch and primarily prefer static defense. Both sides also have different specialized infantry. Crayven has the SWAT-like Jaeger squads armed with long-range rifles deadly against enemy infantry but virtually useless against enemy armor. However, their good eyesight allows them to act as spotters for Crayven artillery if they climb a hill, and their low profile means the enemy is hard-pressed to find and kill them. The Order, instead, uses an Amazon Brigade of Templars that fire anti-tank weapons. The Order also has an unarmed hover-platform that launches Attack Drones that hone in on enemy armor and explode on impact. For obvious reasons, they are useless against hoverdynes.
- The Dark Crusade stand-alone Expansion Pack introduces the Phoenix Mercenaries that use modified Crayven tech and rely primarily on guerilla warfare.
- Ground Control II: Operation Exodus goes with the same model. The Northern Star Alliance mostly uses the same Crayven tech, although each unit now has a secondary feature (e.g. their most powerful tank can become a literal fortress by extending its side armor forward to protect other units near it). The Terran Empire uses the advanced Order-derived tech coupled with Walking Tanks. Then come the Virons whose vehicles (called centruroids) are their version of Imperial hoverdynes, but nearly all their units are capable of merging to become a different type of unit. Imperial tactics are mostly of the We Have Reserves variety, as NSA forces are usually outnumbered but still manages to overcome the Imperials with better training and tactics.
- In MechWarrior Living Legends, the two sides reflect different combat philosophies; the Inner Sphere uses tough, affordable, high endurance battlemechs built with (generally) outdated equipment, where as the Clans use fragile, expensive, with poor endurance but extreme firepower. Inner Sphere forces are well suited to capturing a base and then sitting on their ass in it, as they have the best defensive units in the game. Clans are well suited for open field combat, as their weapons have boosted range and they can quickly close the gap with their high-output fusion reactors. Inner Sphere is more suited for combined arms warfare by using Tank Goodness and Space Plane support, while Clans have to make due with either scout tanks or slow siege weapons and Master of None aircraft.
- In the game's Tournament Play, the major units had a general combat philosophy; Knights of the Inner Sphere used combined arms tactics to dominate the skies and assault enemies from afar, Russian Death Legion and Eridani Light Horse made heavy use of kiting tactics while sniping, Clan Smoke Jaguar generally used Zerg Rush tactics with Close Range Combatant mechs, 12th Vegan Rangers generally ended up nuking themselves after valiant charges, and Cloud Cobra was a generalist; making use of primarily battlemech forces at mixed ranges. Knowing the enemy's philosophy was a key part of the Meta Game.
- In Shadowrun: Hong Kong, several of the characters' tracks are opposed to each other.
- Duncan's tracks focus on either AP damage and other nonlethals, or direct damage.
- Is0bel's focuses on either Matrix or meatspace combat.
- Racter's configures Koschei either towards Close Range Combatant or Long-Range Fighter.
- Gobbet's either improves her control over spirit or improves her own spells.
- Gaichu's either improves his ghoul abilities or his swordplay.
- In Xyber 9 New Dawn, Renard focuses more on ground based combat, Tatania's forces attack from the air. Also, he's more likely to just dump infantry on an area than she is.
- The Various Bending Styles on Avatar: The Last Airbender, each have their own philosophies; first, the Airbending style is all about "being the leaf" relying on circular movements, lots of dodging, and using non-lethal techniques in general. In Contrast Earthbending is all about "Being the Rock", standing your ground, hitting hard and using the terrain (literally) to your advantage. Then there is Firebending, which is all about overwhelming opponents with raw power. While the waterbending style focuses on flow of movement and redirecting the attacks of the enemy, with bonus healing abilities. The Avatar being the Kung-Fu Jesus Master of All has to master them all, but they have the most trouble learning the element that is most opposite their personality (which is generally aligned to the element of the nation they were born into, the first element they learn to control).
- Traditionally, the more agile United States Marine Corps were sent in as shock troops to annihilate enemy forces, while the more powerful but sluggish United States Army would then hold the captured territory. However, recent operations have blurred this division of labor.
- Particularly special forces in the U.S. Army have blurred the line. However, this is a result of a changing tactical environment (think World War 2 compared to Iraq War 2). The Marines are still the premiere "hit hard, cripple the enemy" forces, but the Army is catching up, though they generally use "hit hard, destroy the enemy" tactics instead. The Marines are also backed up by the Navy, which has both fighter-bombers and medium range tactical missiles, which is a rather large advantage. The Army, on the other hand, has much more artillery.
- Those philosophies have been discarded as the U.S. military has opted for integrated "joint-force" operations in almost every engagement, utilizing the strengths of all branches, together. This, of course, was due to the resulting Interservice Rivalry getting to such a point that it was jeopardizing major operations.
- There was a real and well documented case of Opposing Combat Philosophies within the U.S. Air Force during the late '40s and early '50s between Gen Curtis LeMay, who wanted manned nuclear bombers and lots of them, and his detractors who included President Kennedy, Secretary of Defense McNamara, U.S. Army Gen. Maxwell Taylor and many, many others.
- This mirrored an earlier case of OCP between WWI and WWII where Billy Mitchell, desperate to secure money for his nascent Army Air Force, basically went to war with the U.S. Navy, intending to cannibalize their funding. He put on many highly-publicized tests to try and demonstrate that bombers made the Navy's battleships obsolete. He would eventually be partially Vindicated by History; battleships themselves were rendered obsolete by better military aircraft... mostly aircraft flying off carriers (which Mitchell opposed bitterly as a waste of money that he insisted should be diverted to land-based bombers).
- * The opposing ground forces during the Cold War in Germany. NATO's philosophy was to have individually highly capable, but expensive chess pieces whose loss could be crippling. The Soviet/Warsaw Pact, on the other hand by comparison, was deliberately limiting the capability, initiative and equipment of each individual chess piece, and instead investing a large percentage of its effort in raising a breed of grand masters who could play chess well, understanding and accepting the natural limitations of each piece. In other words, a rank of queens and rooks against two ranks of knights and bishops.
- Victor Suvorov, who defected from the USSR to the UK and wrote Inside The Soviet Army, illustrated some of the core differences very well. One scenario he often used was to tell the NATO officer he had a unit making effective headway in its attack, a unit making slow headway in its attack, and a unit being decimated in its attack, and then asked the NATO officer who should get the support. NATO officers always chose to give the support to either the struggling or the breaking group so as to protect them and prevent a rout. Suvorov said the correct choice in Soviet doctrine was to support the group making the most headway, thereby allowing them to complete their objectives and break the enemy formations to force a retreat and force the enemy to reallocate forces to deal with the change in situation, thereby ending the battle sooner with maximal gains for the attacking force.
- There were training differences between NATO and War Pac soldiers. NATO training tended to emphasize developing broader personal initiativenote Western troops got taught to do everything in their power. Eastern troops are drilled relentlessly to do two things: follow orders and fight. And whereas western NCO's pretty much run the army on the ground level, eastern junior officers do that.
- Do keep in mind that Suvorov also seemed to make sure that whenever he painted an overly unfavorable picture for the west, he had a tendency to follow it up with things like trying to assure everyone that in the event of war, only a miniscule number of Combloc troops would even be competently trained, let along able to get to the front with their proper allotments of supplies. And then should any heavy fighting break out, the reaction of the Warpac forces would be to surrender by the million.
- Soviet doctrine was also different in terms of how to handle losses. NATO forces like to handle losses by putting replacement soldiers into units to assume the roles of the lost fighters. The Soviets preferred to use each unit until it reached exhaustion, then they would rotate in an entire fresh unit to the battle while folding depleted units into each other.
- Soviet supplies worked very differently from NATO supplies. In a NATO army, especially an American one, every unit and every man is equipped with all the kit needed to do any mission they could possibly get, regardless of location or priority. Soviet logistics preferred to optimize supply flow to give the very most and latest and greatest to the priority frontline units and then reduce allotments in lower priority areas. NATO armies were also far more logistics heavy than War Pac armies. The Soviet soldier carried very little with him — weapon, ammo, grenades, some tools, food, and water. Rucks seldom ever weighed more than twenty-five pounds. NATO troops are infamously burdened by gear. This does have the effect of making western forces Crazy-Prepared, if not exactly the most mobile.
- During the Cold War, the U.S. and Soviet navies had very different doctrines on defeating each other in the event of war, and this affected everything from their tactics to their ship designs. U.S. ships were designed with better survivability, fewer but more reliable weapons, more comfort (the term being relative here) to support longer times at sea, and their fleets were centered around their aircraft carriers and depended heavily on air power, which they would also use to support troops inland. The Soviets, on the other hand, built more ships than the U.S. with more but less reliable weapons, and shorter endurance. They couldn't match the U.S.'s surface and air superiority so they concentrated on building better submarines and anti-ship cruise missiles which could strike from afar. They figured that the major fighting in a hypothetical World War III would be in Europe and so they wouldn't have to outright defeat the U.S. Navy, just deny it the ability to effectively resupply its forces in Europe.
- It's not that the Soviets expected their navy to lose; they had good reasons for choosing to specialize as they did. Submarines during the Cold War and after it are not what they were in WWII. The nuclear variety is capable of silently stalking beneath the waves for months at a time, virtually undetectable, and very well armed. Should have the Warsaw Pact navies engaged NATO's, chances are that all of the surface fleets would have been reduced to radioactive scrap metal by nuclear weapons, with submarines actually having the best chances of survival. Even in non-nuclear combat, many experts during the period came to the conclusion that NATO's surface-faring fleets would not last long when faced with wolf packs of Soviet submarines (though NATO still had its own subs, just less of them).
- Even among submarines, there was a notable difference in philosophies: Soviet submarines were better performers, ultimately culminating in the ridiculously Awesomebut Impractical Alfa class. But they also generated a LOT of noise. NATO submarines, on the other hand, were not as impressive in performance but were much quieter and were equipped with superior gadgetry.
- Soviet air superiority doctrine was centered around one-pass-kills (fly at high speed past your target as you kill it) to significantly decrease interception time (the MiG 31, for example, is one of the fastest planes ever built, but can't turn worth a damn because it didn't need to). U.S. air superiority doctrine eventually evolved to more measured approaches and extremely long range missile shots while avoiding dogfighting.
- The Soviets included a considerable amount of air defense weapons from army level down to battalion, while U.S. Army AirLand Battle doctrine operated under the assumption that the Air Force would be able to keep the skies clear of enemy aircraft and therefore had less resources devoted to air defense. Yes, NATO, especially Americans, REALLY do assume that they can put the war on hold to get support. On that note, Soviet air superiority was based upon surprise air attacks on airfields, and tanks on the enemy's airbase, rather than straight PVO-type interception. For the Soviet Navy, the submarine and anti-ship missile-centric fleet was out of choice and their view of cost-effectiveness, not inability. For endurance, the Soviets looked at readiness in a different way, which is exemplified that Soviet sailors identified themselves with fleets rather than ships.
- Another part of this is in their Tank design, Soviet Philosophy was Attack! Attack! Attack!, counterattacking instead of defending, and thus their tanks were designed to Emphasize the "Lightning" part of Lightning Bruiser, while the Americans had a more defensive philosophy, where their tanks would "Hull down" on hills and generally hold the line against the enemy, were more "Bruiser" based.
- Come to think of it, this is basically the competing philosophy between major land powers (USSR in this case) and major sea powers (USA) which repeats itself through history. Earlier examples included England (sea) v. France (land), England (sea) v. Germany (land), going all the way back to Rome (land) vs. Carthage (sea) and Athens (sea) V. Sparta (land).
- Location played a lot into it: the United States would be separated from WWIII by oceans and so control of the water would have been critical to keeping up the fight. The Soviets didn't need to cross the ocean, and would have to pass by several potentially hostile countries to access the open seas (something for which submarines would have been quite useful for). Accordingly, controlling the seas was unimportant to the Soviets, compared to locating and destroying U.S. fleets and convoys heading for Europe.
- Up until relatively recently, nearly all of the above was also applicable to China, albeit with a greatly reduced focus on seapower as for a long time their most pressing military threat came from their land border with Russia. How much of that is still true, only time will tell.
- The German Army's mastery of maneuver warfare (swift, coordinated, simultaneous assault with infantry, artillery, and air power) was its greatest advantage at the start of World War II. The allied forces, prepared only for the attrition warfare tactics of World War I, were left beaten, bloody, and desperate to catch up during the opening years of the war.
- The Crusades has examples of this. The Europeans prefer heavily armored knights, while the Arabs and Turks prefer lightly armored but still heavily armed horsemen. In terrains with not much room to maneuver the knights are deadly, but in open terrain, especially at the desert, the light horsemen can wreak more damage.
- Until quite recently there was a remarkable variability in this due to terrain, economics, ideology and what not. This may have gotten less so in modern times; most countries seem to try to imitate European style. Except for guerrillas which are the other main combat philosophy of the modern world.
- The strategies each side of the American Civil War employed during most of the war. The Confederate strategy relied on a series of decisive victories in pitched battle that would quickly force the Union to the negotiating table once they lost their stomach for war. The Union strategy (mostly) involved attrition and the control of key locations, knowing it would be able to outlast the Confederacy in any prolonged conflict due to their industrial superiority and population advantage. The dual Union victories at Gettsyburg and Vicksburg during July of 1863 illustrate the success of one strategy (the Union gained complete control of the Mississippi River, further tightening the noose around the Confederacy) and the failure of another (Lee banking on a decisive victory on Union soil and being utterly foiled, resulting in a decisive tactical and strategic defeat the Confederacy could not recover from.)
- This appeared on the Union side for much of the war, represented in the persons of General George McClellan and General Ulysses S. Grant. McClellan, Father to His Men through and through, was always cautious, losing several battles and even more opportunities because he had overestimated the strength of the Confederate forces. Grant, on the other hand, was willing to press the North's advantages for all they were worth, including the advantage of manpower, in order to bring a faster victory. The result was the sacking of McClellan and (eventually) the appointment of Grant in his place as commanding general of the Army.
- This came to the fore during the Second Punic War on the Roman side. With Hannibal smashing one Roman army after another in Italy, Quintus Fabius Maximus came to lead a new Roman army to oppose the Carthaginians. Fabius used his army to shadow and harrass Hannibal, refusing the open battle Hannibal desired and all the while reducing Carthaginian morale, numbers, and supplies. However, this strategy was time consuming and the Romans wanted to smash Hannibal once and for all, so he instead placed the aggressive Gaius Terentius Varro in charge. He gave Hannibal an open battle, outnumbering him nearly 2-1....and had his army annihilated at the Battle of Cannae. In the end, Fabius was proven correct, since he knew that Hannibal would never have the manpower or resources to ever try and capture Rome, and knew Hannibal grossly underestimated Roman resolve.
- On the strategic level, Rome's ultimate success against Carthage (and its rise to power in general) was due to the fact that they approached warfare on an all-or-nothing basis rather than merely as "a continuation of politics by other means," which was the default for conflicts between settled societies of the time. Where the Carthaginians were convinced that destroying Roman armies in the field would bring them humbly to the peace table (which is part of why Hannibal never actually marched on Rome itself), the Romans instead believed that they were involved in a do-or-die struggle for survival. When they gained the upper hand, the Romans took the initiative to dismantle Carthage's empire almost entirely (and ultimately destroy the city itself).
- When the Romans and the Greeks came to blows with each other, they both used different methods in warfare. The Greeks mostly fought in phalanx formation which they would place all their infantry in a long wall of spears and shields, while the Romans would fight in maniples where their infantry are organized in several loose box formations. The phalanx was strong and sturdy, but it was inflexible and is weak on being outflanked from the sides and rear. The Roman maniple was far more flexible, and the army could change to a new formation if they could get a better advantage... As they had learned on their own skin back when they too used the phalanx and suffered a devastating defeat against the Samnites, who used proto-manipular tactics.
- The Romans were also big on combined arms: while their best forces were always in the heavy infantry of the legion, they would also use light infantry for skirmish and rain arrows on the enemy and cavalry for recon and shock. Most of their enemies, on the other hand, tended to concentrate only on one kind of troop, resulting in the Samnite infantry-only armies Greek unsupported phalanxes being outflanked by cavalry, Parthian cavalry-based armies being unable to fully take on the Roman combined infantry-cavalry formations once the Romans adopted Parthian-style cavalry, and so on, with Rome's greatest opponents giving them trouble because they too had a similar approach (Hannibal's army included a heavy infantry phalanx, skirmishers, and a formidable cavalry).
- Rome's main military advantage was also it's defining social trait: an unapologetic willingness to copy other cultures' ideas wholesale and make them their own. Most cultures at the time put entirely too much importance on fighting the same way they had for centuries, or just ripping off Alexander the Great.
- Martial Arts is often divided into "Hard" and "Soft" categories; usually accepted as using force directly or redirecting an opponent's force.
- In World War II Germany relied on its virtuousity in maneuver warfare to clock off a string of victories in local campaigns. Britain relied on its Navy, the resources of The British Empire, and hundreds of years of experience in global wars; as well as deception and their patronage of La Résistance to buy time until allies arrived and wear down German strength. America relied on industrial capacity. Its most notable tactical strength was its massive and superbly-manned air power. The Soviets relied on numbers and furious counter-attacks in the first period of war (1941-2) sophisticated deception operations to muster overwhelming concentrations of artillery in unexpected sectors in the second (1942-3), and rapid exploitation by cavalry and mechanised units (with air-support) of the holes their artillery could punch in the enemy lines in the third (1943-5). Japan relied on the individual skill of its personnel as well as their " warrior spirit". Finland, with nothing else to rely on, depended on the roughness of their country and its people.
- Sir Arthur Harris, head of RAF Bomber Command during WW II opposed anyone who didn't hew to his strategy of bombing German cities. He believed the quickest way to end the war was to specifically target cities and civilian populations, over an invasion of Europe.
- The US also banked on its massive logistical capacity, combined with that industrial capacity. Per capita, the US had a much smaller front line fighting force than any other nation, but a much larger support structure for that force, able to supply troops fighting on four continents even while dealing with the German and Japanese efforts to interrupt their seaborne supply lines (German submarine warfare and Japanese island warfare being the main threats to Allied lines of communication and supply during the war)
- Differing doctrines and philosophies also lead to different approaches to warship design. One oft-cited example is the difference between American and British carrier design and operation. The Royal Navy assumed that their carriers would often operate relatively close to land, due to much of their traditional area of operations being around the English Channel and Mediterranean, and so their carriers featured heavy Anti-Air armament, with their aircraft stored inside an armored hangar (with the flight deck itself being armored and part of the ship's primary structure). The Americans assumed that their carriers would primarily operate in the open seas (the US being flanked by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, with colonies strung across the Pacific as far away as the Philippine Islands), and placed their armor protection beneath the hangar decks, leaving the open hangars and flight deck as part of the ship's superstructure instead, far more vulnerable, but with a much smaller weight penalty. In addition, the American doctrine included keeping planes parked on the flight deck (seeing as it provided no additional protection from attack than the hangar did). Overall, the American carriers were able to field much larger air wings than their British counterparts, making it less likely for them to be successfully attacked. Later in the war, the Americans did add additional Anti-Air protection, and the Brits began parking additional planes on their flight decks, having adapted their strategies based on wartime experience.
- The Soviets didn't field any carriers during WWII, but in the Cold War, they viewed their carriers as defensive weapons, rather than force projection weapons like the Americans and British did. Many Soviet carriers, described as Aviation Cruisers, were built as surface warfare ships which also happened to carry a flight deck sufficient to put up a light aerial screen to protect the fleet from attack.
- German vs. English longsword fencing. The German masters teach to control the battle by attacking, and keeping your opponent on his back foot by forcing him to respond to your attacks and not giving him time to launch any of his own. The English, however, teach to control the battle by drawing your opponent to attack by offering him conspicuous openings, and thereby controlling your opponents attacks and luring your opponent to expose himself.