[chrisseaton]

For example I might use one sub-unit to conduct a feint to draw the enemy's focus and then use my other sub-units to conduct an attack in another area. If you don't have a checklist to think about that sort of thing almost everyone tends to go into tunnel vision and put all their units on a conveyor belt towards the objective. People still need to be explicitly told to use deception. It's specific useful advice that it turns out we need in practice - it isn't generic.

[Waterluvian]

I have to ask. I recall reading that Sun Tzu suggests the value of giving a formidable enemy a route to flee, lest you accidentally force them to fight despite being ready to rout. Is that practical advice in modern warfare? From the cheap seats that I occupy, it seems like the goal is to kill or capture and allowing an enemy to flee is a failure.

[chrisseaton]

> it seems like the goal is to kill or capture

The goal is almost never to kill or capture. That’s not why you’re there in the first place, is it? The goal is to achieve some effect. If you can do that without killing or capturing then all the better. If you narrowly focus on killing and capturing then you may be missing other options which are easier. That’s what Sun Tzu is reminding us, and it’s why a modern tactical checklist includes an item like ‘what effect do I want to have on the enemy?’ so you don’t just go straight to kill or capture.

[michaelscott]

He didn't mean don't kill or capture the fleeing enemy, only giving them the opportunity to do so. The idea is that nothing is more dangerous and likely to fight with all his strength than a man who knows he can't get out, but give a man the hope that he can and he will use all his strength to escape.

I'm not sure if it was also Sun Tzu or perhaps Marcus Aurelius who also mention that the most vulnerable state an army can be in is when it routs (this is borne out historically, as most battles with very heavy casualties on one side suffer them during a rout). So if you allow the enemy a gap to flee you have options to either spare them or wipe them out depending on your goal as a commander.

[OG_BME]

My favorite example of this is from the Battle of Mohi[0] during the Mongol conquest of Europe. The legendary Mongol general Subutai left a "hole" in the their encirclement of the Hungarian army. He did not want the crossbowmen and cavalry of the Hungarians making a last stand on "death ground" as Sun Tzu calls it. Thus, they fled through this "hole" only to be cut down individually by Mongols on horseback.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mohi

[michaelscott]

The Mongols really were masters of the retreat mechanic in combat. They used it themselves very often by feigning retreat with their light cavalry (which could move quicker than most enemies they fought) only to lead the enemy into a prepared ambush, since again the conventional wisdom was that a "routed" enemy was most vulnerable and the enemy would push the "advantage" by chasing them.

They got so good at this tactic (which is one of the hardest to pull off, even in modern combat) that they had a special word for the manoeuvre, but my Google-fu has unfortunately failed me in trying to dig it up.

[NeedMoreTea]

Isn't that simply the feigned retreat?

Across the few Khan and Mongol histories I've read the tactics are there, but often end up with different names. Like the only tactic that springs to mind right now is to spread out a march to stay low profile during movement. They would call that "moving tree formation", or "moving bush", or "waking tree", or some other related variation from similar root. A quick search brought me to [1], which calls it the new-to-me "bush clump tactic". This book calls your feigned retreat "Luring into Ambushes".

Translation seems to bring a lot of variation in these supposed names. So I end up entirely unsure what they really called them. :)

[1] http://deremilitari.org/2014/06/the-art-of-war-under-chinggi...

[michaelscott]

It's definitely a feigned retreat in English yeah. What made the Mongols so unreasonably good at it was that no one was better than them on a horse or with a bow (i.e. they could attack from range while retreating; the introduction of guns levelled the playing field because they required much less strength and skill to use). They could pull the feigned retreat off in a way that resulted in few if any casualties, since even a feigned retreat has a high level of danger associated with it (which is what makes it so tough to pull off).

Thanks for doing the digging up on all the names :) It really is interesting how the tactic has been used and adapted over time and place, and how the names necessarily would be different depending on who you ask. I guess calling it any of the above is totally valid XD