Battle Tactics 1 - Hammer and Anvil

defence.pk/pdf/threads/battle-tactics-1-hammer-and-anvil.469677/

jhungary

jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

Oct 24, 2012

14,423

358

14,136

Country

Location

Dec 30, 2016

#1

I am starting this thread on my break hoping to create some interest in Tactical

Discussion, I may not be here to update this thread as I am going back to school after
summer holiday in Australia ended in Jan 30. I am going to write maybe one more artice
on Miltiary Tactics and be sticking around before Jan 20 then I am going to disappear
from this forum again

I hope that member such as @AUSTERLITZ or @Levina or @PARIKRAMA can update

this thread and keep the tactical discussion open for everyone. Meanwhile if you have
any question, i'll be around to answer them before Jan 20, afterward. I am sorry, but
maybe someone else can help you

So, without further ado, here is the first article.

1/38
Battle Tactics 1 - Hammer and Anvil

Introduction

Hammer and Anvil is a classical military tactics, it was used extensively by Alexander the
Great during his conquest for half of the known world. Some historian even said it was
Alexander the great who created this tactics, tho it's quite doubtful this is the case.

Hammer and Anvil is such a good tactics, even with weapon and engagement changed
over time, we can still see its usage by modern military today, and one thing we cannot
doubt is that it was hammer and anvil tactic that give birth to a lot of modern military
tactics. either from trying to counter it or from modifying it usage over the time.

As such, this tactic deserve to talk about in this battle tactics corner. And it is our number
one article.

Background History

Although no one can be certain when exactly is Hammer and Anvil tactics is created,
some credited Alexander the Great, no one can be certain when did this tactics was first
used in any military conflict. Chances are it was already used either by mean or by
accident long before 350BC (bear in mind the earliest record for cavalry is at around 450
to 500 BC.)

However, one thing can be sure is that this tactics is made famous from Alexander the
great during his conquer of half the known world.

When Alexander use it, he uses with his companion cavalry match up with heavy or light
infantry to act as the Hammer and Anvil effect. It was used quite extensively as a part of
his conquering campaign

2/38
In a historical sense, hammer and anvil were used numerous time and it's one of the old
pillar of military tactics, even with time changed, with the advance weaponry, the hammer
and anvil continue to be employed in theatre of war

How does it works?

In short, Hammer and Anvil worked by pinning your enemy, usually less mobile with your
own infantry, then using a faster force to envelope your less mobile enemy from behind,
thus pinning or hammering your enemy into the anvil (your own infantry) for the slaughter.

By passing or sandwiching your enemy between your lighter but faster force and your
heavy and bulkier force, you can, as we say, chop them in the front and stab them in the
back, and basically surrounding your enemy from all side, it will force them to fight inn two
front, also, by enveloping your enemy, you also cut off their supply.

Easy enough to say, in reality, the success of an Hammer and Anvil tactics would require
a number of factors.

1.) Geographic factors - Geographic factors works both ways, meaning it will work for or
against both you and your enemy. Putting your enemy in a harsh terrain would ensure
disengagement impossible for your slower enemy, however, same terrain will also work
against your own fast troop. Theoretically, the best terrain for a Hammer and Anvil tactics
is with river or ocean on one side of your enemy, and slope or flatland on the other

2.) Speed - The speed of your fast unit will need to be able to cover the gap between your
enemy and their escape route, if your enemy can pull back and disengage before your
fast unit converging on their retreat, then this will become a moot point.

However, moving too fast would present another problem, moving too fast would mean
your enemy have time to prepare a two front war with your slower unit and your larger
unit.

3.) Number and Strength - You need to have strength and number in both your hammer
and anvil, your hammer can be of a smaller force, but your anvil must be able to absorb
the blow from your enemy. Otherwise, when you hammer your enemy toward the anvil
(your infantry), if there are too litter infantry to hold the line, what you basically do is
simply hammer your enemy from behind and they broke your line and move forward.

In another words, your anvil must be strong enough, and good enough to take on the
grind.

Tactical Consideration

For Hammer and Anvil tactics, there are two distinct considerations for this tactic

1.) Speed is the key, quick in, quick out, make sure your enemy cannot envelope your
group, or in modern sense, bring artillery on top of you to bring down your attacks.

3/38
In extreme case, your enemy could actually be setting up a trap for you to engage a
smaller force, scarified that smaller force and win a local engagement with you with
tactical air support or artillery support. Or they will simply roll you over with a bigger force

2.) Anchoring the Hammer and Anvil, although a double Hammer and Anvil do exist (the
one which you use cavalry on both side and roll up your enemy on both left and right
flank), the anchor point of your tactics should be carefully chosen, the end goal is you
want to roll up your enemy from behind, meaning you will need to anchor your infantry
and your fast unit (in this case cavalry) to close a circle. otherwise you are routing your
enemy, but not feeding them into your infantry grinder.

Counter Tactics

In some way, this tactics cannot be stopped once it started. But there are several thing
you can do to push this tactics if you are in one.

1.) Using your fast troop to engage the hammer. Very old tactics, not quite useful today,
but worked well in the old days, what you simply do is to crash your own cavalry (If you
have them) into the hammer paths, and if you can destroy or disrupt the hammer blow,
you will force your enemy back into a grinding war.

And because it usually mean your enemy have inferior number or strength (otherwise
they would simply do a head on attack) Which mean you can usually crashed the anvil
and break out.

2.) Using your own fast troop as a hammer. If terrain allowed (therefore this is such an
important requirement for this tactics), you can simply replicate your enemy by launching
your own hammer and anvil attacks, that way, we can see who break first and who break
first, loses.

3.) More modern technique would call for a defensive approach with air/land/sea
interdiction. It will be harder for modern warfare to pull off such a tactics, one thing is the
advancement of secondary bombardment. Today, unlike ancient time, troop can be
interdicted with ranged weaponry (such as Howitzer or Artillery) and the approach can be
mined so the fast unit (such as tank) could be bogged down by defensive measure, as
speed is the key, this will work against the tactic'

While most people believe a refused flank can help with defending the Hammer and Anvil
tactics, this have proven in battle of Cannae as false, the hammer can simply stretch to a
point it can still roll up your flank, and because the cavalry is mobile, they can simply go
around your refused flank and attack you from the rear.

Case Studies

Battle of Gaugamela - October 1, 330 BC

4/38
The prime example for Alexander the Great with his companion cavalry using the
Hammer and Anvil Tactic to destroy the Persian left flank.

Alexander, with his 47,000 troop, engaging a large Persian force led by King Darius III
numbered from 60,000 to 90,000 troop and cavalry.

Holding the main Macedonian line is 30,000 heavy pike man of the Alexander Phalanx
formation, with 9,000 supporting light infantry, and 7,000 companion cavalry, Alexander
the Great laid out his battle line with a double refused flank formation looks like a
Trapezium Shape. With both Cavalry unit on the side, arch back 45 degrees, and the
main Phalanx on the center battle line, back up with light infantry and reserves.

Darius spread his force in a straight line, with both cavalry and chariot on the side,
infantry in the center.

The battle open with Darius engaging both flank on Alexander's line in a cavalry battle,
meanwhile the charging Persian engage the phalanx formation in the center. The last bit
of the puzzle is for Darius to use his chariots onto Alexander command line, which in turn
opening up a gap for Alexander to charge thru. While the chariot attack was either
intercepted or rendered harmless by opening up the Macedonian rank and let the chariot
harmlessly passed.

5/38
Seizing the gap with the confused Persian cavalry and chariot, Alexander charged thru
the gap with his companion cavalry, using his reserve phalanx to hold down the Persian
cavalry attacks..

After smashing into the Persian infantry line, Alexander return and engage the Persian
line from behind, thus, hammering the Persian front line into Alexander's own Phalanx
formation.

At this stage, both Persian center and left flanks collapsed, and king Darius escaped, only
the Persian right and center right remain as a viable force, which threaten to roll over
Alexander's own left flank, eventually Alexander own force reinforced their left flank and
repelled the Persian attacks. But not before some Persian troop broke thru and looting
Alexander's camp.

The overall battle is a success, with Alexander force being in a 2 on 1 long way (8/90,000
Persian v 47,000 Macedonian) and in particular, Persian cavalry outnumber Alexander's
cavalry 2 or 3 to 1. The clever use of Hammer and Anvil save the day for Alexander

Battle of Cannae - August 2, 216 BC

6/38
Battle of Cannae is fought between Roman Empire and Carthage on Cannae, modern
day southern Italy.

Carthaginian force numbered in 57,000 while Roman send out 8 Legions (instead of the
usual 4) numbering between 50,000 o 60,000 (with high estimate to 80,000) troops.
Mostly foot soldier, with roman fighting technique, these force would have been heavily
armed and more importantly, heavily armored.

The Carthaginian position their troop in two reverse echelon, resembling a triangle. With
the African infantry and Spanish cavalry in the center flanked by Spanish and Numidian
cavalry on the flank.

The Roman have their usual legion march formation, packing their troop in a tight
rectangular shape and march with discipline

With both side march into each other, Roman held their formation while the Carthage
change his formation with and extended convex shape resembling a slight half oval or
semicircle (depending on which source you read) but in all, the Carthage line draw back
at the center, with the Spanish cavalry prepare to break rank. This shape also give the
Carthage a longer line which best to absorb the initial roman smash because of the
shape.

7/38
Battle started with both Carthage flank attack both Roman cavalry, routing the Roman
cavalry early on in the battle, leave behind the Roman infantry, early in the battle, with the
Roman infantry engaging the Carthage infantry in the middle, the Carthage pull back the
center to stretch the line and absorb the shock from the Roman, as the line stretch longer
and curvier, the Roman rooted deep into the Carthage rank, but at this point, Hannibal
order the Libyan infantry, which is heavy pike man, to engage and roll up both flank of
Roman rank, which is now deep inside the Carthage line. to round up the attack, the
Spanish cavalry then roll to the back of the Roman Legions and completely surrounded
the Romans.

Both African infantry and Spanish cavalry then hammer the Roman into the Carthage
main line, which comprise of mostly Gaul and Iberian infantry, which is fierce hand to
hand fighter.

As such, the Roman cannot chew thru the Iberian and Gaul line and at the same time
being hammered in the back, and the attack fall apart. estimated 40,000 roman (or 6
Legions) decimated in this battle, and Carthage win the battle with an overall 2 to 1 odds.

Battle of Baghdad - April 3 - 12, 2003 AD

One of the battle I have actually fought myself, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, the US
military prepared a two front war headed by a mixed British and US Marine on the
southern route, and US 3d Infantry division on the western route, this is the latest known

8/38
example of Hammer and Anvil being use in modern warfare.

US Marine and the British force, numbering about 18,000 ill attack town after town thru
Barsa, Qul'at, al-Kut and then onto Baghdad to the south, on the other hand, US 3d ID
will attack along a Western route, smashing thru Nasiriya, Najaf, Karbala and then hook
right into Baghdad from the West.

While the majority of Iraqi Republic guard will fight along the line of the US Marine and
the British force, majority of them will ten be trapped between the US Marine to the south
and the US 3d Infantry to the west, also with 173rd Airborne brigade airdropped to tikrit
North of Baghdad, cutting off the Republic guard retreat.

9/38
In all, the US will have 30,000 soldier amongst the 1st Marine Division, 3rd infantry
division, 173 independent airborne brigade and the British force. Facing off 50,000 Iraqi
republic guard littered around both US forces objective.

US Marine tasked to take both Al-Kut and Nasiriya with minor casualty. while the US 3rd
Infantry took Najaf and Karbala and move onto the Baghdad International in the West,
from there, they used the BIA as the forward base and attack Baghdad from North West,
where the Marine is approaching from the south, while the 3rd Infantry battle on the West
and secure 3 ring road around the City of Baghdad, taking objective Moe, Larry and
Curley from south west to north west, and taking Objective Diane.

10/38
The job of 64th Armored Regiment of the 3d ID is to force the Iraqi republic guard out of
their position and move south by cutting from South West to North, and force them onto
the Marine line, by which time, have established road block to the south of the city.

Rounding out the battle, the US loses at about 34 KIA with 5-600 WIA of their 30,000
troop, Iraqi suffered 2500+ KIA in the fight and unknown number of WIA, this has been
contributed to the hammer and anvil effect started by the tanks of 3d ID.

Author : Gary Locke, BA International Affair CU Boulder, MPhil Strategic Studies,

Australian National University, Captain US Army, 3d Infantry Division

All Right Reserved, do not copy or redirect this article without author permission

Levina
BANNED

Sep 16, 2013

15,278

59

11/38
37,239

Country

Location

Dec 30, 2016

#3

Good to see you back Gary.

I recognise this battle tactic, it definitely has been one of the most effective battle
strategies. Battle of Baghdad,2003,proves that hammer and anvil tactic works in the
modern day battles too.

In Indian context, a battle fought between Aurangzeb and Sambhaji's forces, used
hammer and anvil but was effectively countered by the latter's forces.

The year was 1683,when Aurangzeb (a Mughal emperor) decided to take over the
western province of Maharashtra, which was then ruled by Sambhaji (son of the
legendary king Shivaji).

Aurangzeb planned to send his 2 princes, Azam Shah and Shah Alam, to north and south
respectively, to encircle the enemy and attack.

Everything went as planned.

But it was Shah Alam,marching south, who was the weaker link of the two, so the
Marathas decided to take him down first. Marathas were known to use guerilla tactics,
and since they were conversant with the territory, very rarely did the enemies succeed.

Shah Alam's army supply chains were ransacked and his army was left to starve.
Aurangzeb had to finally dispatch

one of his minsters to rescue his prince. The plan was dropped.

12/38
Hand marked in orange and blue are Mughal army's planned movement.

The Mughal emperor didn't give up. Till 1687,Mughals and Marathas came face to face on
many ocasssions,but nothing worked against the Marathas.

Finally, Sambhaji was captured after being spied upon by a friendly clan.

Since Mughal emperor had been humiliated by Sambhaji, Aurangzeb ensured that
Sambhaji was tortured to death.
By no means Marathas and Mughals
can be considered equals. The Mughal army was a
behemoth compared to the Maratha army. But Marathas resisted Mughals successfully
with their guerilla tactics. Three decades and several battles later Aurangzeb dropped his
plan to capture the western province.

jhungary said:
I may not be here to update this thread as I am going back to school after summer
holiday in Australia ended in Jan 30.

Click to expand...

All the best.

jhungary said:
hope that member such as @AUSTERLITZ or @Levina or @PARIKRAMA can
update this thread and keep the tactical discussion open for everyone
Click to expand...

13/38
Thanks for the tag.
Last edited: Dec 31, 2016

AUSTERLITZ
SENIOR MEMBER

Jun 10, 2008

6,029

175

10,147

Country

Location

Dec 30, 2016

#4

Philip of Macedon instituted this as the standard battle tactic of the macedonian army,with
the phalanx as the anvil and the companion cavalry as the hammer.Hammer and anvil is
mostly a broad term for a combined pin and kill attack with 2 parts of your army which
cane be done done by a flank attack or a single/double envelopment.David Chandler i
think developed the concept of 7 classic battle maneuvres(except ambush) -

1.Single flank envelopment

2.Double envelopment

3.Oblique order
4.Penetration of
centre

5.Defensive offense

6.Feigned retreat

7.Indirect approach(strategic envelopment)

14/38
Napoleon who revolutionized strategy(operational level) used the indirect appraoch
maneuver and the central position move.He also used a 3rd strategic penetration move
but the germans later expanded it and combined it with their schwerpunkt concept and
double envelopment(on a strategic scale) to create the keil und kessel(wedge and
cauldron) which became the staple of their 'blitzkrieg' style.

Tipu7
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

Aug 8, 2014

5,164

96

13,804

Country

Location

Dec 30, 2016

#5

Nice piece of writing...................

Book Marking.

Good to have you back @jhungary

indiatester
SENIOR MEMBER

15/38
May 5, 2011

2,055

-1

1,692

Country

Location

Dec 30, 2016

#6

@jhungary Welcome back. Thanks for the new write up.

Your old report is also valid for this topic

https://defence.pk/threads/battle-of-ong-thanh-1967-ad-vietnam-war-series.287243/

somebozo
ELITE MEMBER

Jul 11, 2010

18,874

-4

18,587

Country

Location

16/38
S

scionofPakwattan
FULL MEMBER

Aug 26, 2016

433

327

Country

Location

Dec 30, 2016

#8

If I am not mistaken, the most recent use of Hammer and Anvil tactics came when
Pakistan Army's special forces and airborne infantry was used to create the hammer
effect by being dropped behind enemy lines and advancing down on enemy from higher
ground from North-East through Peochar and from North-West through Khwazakhela and
mobile infantry was used to create the anvil effect by pushing north towards Mingora. This
enabled them to surround terrorists and while air strikes and aviation support pinned the
Ts down, troops were able to converge on target eliminating the enemy.

LeGenD
MODERATOR

Aug 28, 2006

13,452

17/38
110

16,673

Country

Location

Dec 30, 2016

#9

Very informative.

Slav Defence
THINK TANK VICE CHAIRMAN: ANALYST

Oct 30, 2010

7,586

117

16,366

Country

Location

Dec 31, 2016

#10

Due to high quality discussion and article's content thread has been set as "Featured"

Excellent attempt @jhungary.

18/38
AUSTERLITZ
SENIOR MEMBER

Jun 10, 2008

6,029

175

10,147

Country

Location

Dec 31, 2016

#11

An example

19/38


20/38


21/38


22/38


23/38


5. FALL GELB 1940 :INDIRECT APPROACH + PENETRATION OF THE CENTER

Probably the classic maneuvre campaign of modern military history .The french plan
relied on a Defensive offense which failed.Exhaust the enemy on he impenetrable
Maginot line and a series of river line defensive fronts stretching from france into
Belgium,build up resources and eventually go on the offensive -in a repeat of what had
worked in world war one.The french expected a repeat of 1914 german schliffen
plan,which envisaged a huge hook maneuver invading through the low countries and
sweeping into france from the coast and behind Paris which almost succeeded.As the
first map shows the deployment of forces,this time the main effort was to be in the centre
led by Rundstedt's Army group A and spearheaded by Kleist's Panzer Group (containing
7 out of 10 of germany's panzer divisions).The Northern army group B under Von bock
would invade the low countries(Belgium and Netherlands) serving as bait -this would
entice the bulk of the french reserves to be shifted northward to meet this attack -an
apparent repeatation of 1914.Meanwhile the main weight of the german assault would fall
on the denuded french centre through the ardennes forest-held as impassable for tanks.

Map 2 shows the advance of Army group B in Belgium and Netherlands prompting a
premature deployment of his main reserves towards this front by Gamelin in order to link
up with the retreating belgian and dutch armies .Then suddenly on May 14 with the
german panzer breakthrough at Sedan in the lightly held ardennes sector the main weight
of german forces is revealed.French High command gives a desperate
order recalling its reserves(see french reverse arrow) but its too late as
the allies are now
about to be caught between the advancing germans of Army group B in the north and
Guderian's panzers racing to the french coast about to cut them off from all
communications and supplies with france itself.The retreat order causes large chaos on
top.

Map 3 shows German panzers reach the coast cutting of the best part of the french army
and british expeditionary force in what is called the Flanders pocket.This is a superb
execution of the Indirect appraoch maneuvre.The secondary force (Army group B)
attracted the attention of the main enemy army while using the terrain cover of the
Ardennes forest Army group B of Rundstedt severed the enemy's main Line of
Communications.

Map 4 shows the liquidation of the Flanders pocket culminating at Dunkirk.Holding forces
meanwhile fend off allied attempts to resestablish links with the pocket.After the
destruction of the best part of the allied forces,german forces reorganized and
redeployed.Map 5 and 6 shows the last phase of the campaign,a conventional broad front
attack against the remnant of the french army .The french in this phase fought stubbornly
but were faced with impossible odds having lost the bulk of their men and material in the
flanders pocket.

24/38
This campaign can also be seen as an penetration of the centre(strategic scale)
example.Army group C kept french forces behind the maginot line in place,Army group B
drove back the allied left (belgians and dutch) and served as bait for the main french
reserves.The weakened french centre then penetrated and the entire allied defnsive
system split in 2 by the main german attack by Army group A.

jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

Oct 24, 2012

14,423

358

14,136

Country

Location

Jan 1, 2017

#12

25/38
 Levina said:

Good to see you back Gary.

I recognise this battle tactic, it definitely has been one of the most effective battle
strategies. Battle of Baghdad,2003,proves that hammer and anvil tactic works in the
modern day battles too.

In Indian context, a battle fought between Aurangzeb and Sambhaji's forces, used
hammer and anvil but was effectively countered by the latter's forces.

The year was 1683,when Aurangzeb (a Mughal emperor) decided to take over the
western province of Maharashtra, which was then ruled by Sambhaji (son of the
legendary king Shivaji).
Aurangzeb planned to send
his 2 princes, Azam Shah and Shah Alam, to north and
south respectively, to encircle the enemy and attack.

Everything went as planned.

But it was Shah Alam,marching south, who was the weaker link of the two, so the
Marathas decided to take him down first. Marathas were known to use guerilla
tactics, and since they were conversant with the territory, very rarely did the
enemies succeed.

Shah Alam's army supply chains were ransacked and his army was left to starve.
Aurangzeb had to finally dispatch

one of his minsters to rescue his prince. The plan was dropped.

View attachment 364396

Hand marked in orange and blue are Mughal army's planned movement.

The Mughal emperor didn't give up. Till 1687,Mughals and Marathas came face to
face on many ocasssions,but nothing worked against the Marathas.
Finally, Sambhaji was captured after being spied upon by a friendly
clan.

Since Mughal emperor had been humiliated by Sambhaji, Aurangzeb ensured that
Sambhaji was tortured to death.

By no means Marathas and Mughals can be considered equals. The Mughal army
was a behemoth compared to the Maratha army. But Marathas resisted Mughals
successfully with their guerilla tactics. Three decades and several battles later
Aurangzeb dropped his plan to capture the western province.
Click to expand...

can't find any information on the battle you mentioned, the only information I have found
is the Mughal–Maratha Wars in general ,and most of them are either wikipedia, or copy
from wikipedia....

from your description and the mapping laid out, it looks more like a double envelopment
to me (or pincer move) Pincer move is to pinch the enemy in place, hammer and anvil is
to stuck out the enemy from their defensive/offensive position so you can kill him with

26/38
your line.

But then I may be wrong, as I got no material to go on.............

All the best.

Thanks for the tag.

Click to expand...

lol, thanks, I may need your help on my Research paper tho, that is for my MPhil degree
and I am writing a thesis on How Operational Objective affect Strategic Decision making.

I need someone to proof read my shit.......But that thesis is 40,000 + word long, so I don't
know if you are interested.

AUSTERLITZ said:

Philip of Macedon instituted this as the standard battle tactic of the macedonian
army,with the phalanx as the anvil and the companion cavalry as the
hammer.Hammer and anvil is mostly a broad term for a combined pin and kill attack
with 2 parts of your army which cane be done done by a flank attack or a
single/double envelopment.David Chandler i think developed the concept of 7
classic battle maneuvres(except ambush) -

1.Single flank envelopment

2.Double envelopment
3.Oblique order

4.Penetration of centre
5.Defensive offense

6.Feigned retreat

7.Indirect approach(strategic envelopment)

Napoleon who revolutionized strategy(operational level) used the indirect appraoch

maneuver and the central position move.He also used a 3rd strategic penetration
move but the germans later expanded it and combined it with their schwerpunkt
concept and double envelopment(on a strategic scale) to create the keil und
kessel(wedge and cauldron) which became the staple of their 'blitzkrieg' style.
Click to expand...

Hammer and Anvil can be said basically as a tactics that you somehow achieve a total
encirclement in the end, usually by pinning the infantry or less mobile unit from the front,
then out flank them using a faster unit to the back, sometime if the battle line allow, a
flanking move may also be use to roll up your enemy flank before sealing the couldron.

27/38
The key is to out manuover your enemy by using a faster force to "jump" your enemy from
behind, it used to be cavalry duing the classical period, but today this goes to armored
and more importantly helicopter assault. Hammer and Anvil is the perferred tactic for US
during Vietnam war,

The different between a flanking move (either single or pincer) and hammer and anvil is
thathow do you anchor the flank (the hammer) in response to the anvil, to be albe to
hammer your enemy into your anvil, you will need to anchor your troop to push (hence
toward your own troop) instead of roll up your enemy's back or flank (Peripendicular to
your enemy).

Russian called this manuover sword and shield...

And co-incidentally, I have planned my next article I will talk about the ambush tactics...

Tipu7 said:
Nice piece of writing...................
Book Marking.

Good to have you back @jhungary

Click to expand...

thank you

indiatester said:
@jhungary Welcome back. Thanks for the new write up.

Your old report is also valid for this topic

https://defence.pk/threads/battle-of-ong-thanh-1967-ad-vietnam-war-series.287243/
Click to expand...

Thank you, as I said, helicopter assault goes hand in hand with hammer and anvil, US
forces used Hammer and Anvil primary to hammer out the vietnamese both by APC or
Heliborn assault, you will find a lot of example of Hammer and Anvil in vietnam war.

somebozo said:
I love this thread!

Click to expand...

Thank you, please contribute your thought about the topic or any other tactics.

28/38
 thebaj said:
If I am not mistaken, the most recent use of Hammer and Anvil tactics came when
Pakistan Army's special forces and airborne infantry was used to create the
hammer effect by being dropped behind enemy lines and advancing down on
enemy from higher ground from North-East through Peochar and from North-West
through Khwazakhela and mobile infantry was used to create the anvil effect by
pushing north towards Mingora. This enabled them to surround terrorists and while
air strikes and aviation support pinned the Ts down, troops were able to converge
on target eliminating the enemy.

Click to expand...

I think this is a Double Envelopment instead of Hammer and Anvil. In hammer and Anvil,
you pivot your hammer and drive the enemy toward your anvil, thus, the hammer need to
be quick and it need to be anchor toward your anvil. In a flanking move, you push both
your pincer to the side away from the base of fire. That way you can achieve a giv-or-take
90 degree kill angle (or Enfilade) on your enemy and roll up your enemy that way, the fact
that you said your mobile infantry move north suggest this is a pincer instead of a
hammer and anvil, becasue if that is the latter case, your infantry won't move. As the anvil
part is the one that absorb the enemy blows.

But then not knowing much of the detail, I could be wrong..........just that it seems like this
is a pincer move from what you are describing with respect to my own experience

Slav Defence said:

Due to high quality discussion and article's content thread has been set as
"Featured"

Excellent attempt @jhungary.

Click to expand...

Well, got a few days free from school works and works, and sick and tired of playing
computer games, decided to hang back here for a while

Then I saw nothing had changed and decided to start something meaningful instead. But
then I am going to be here until 20th, then it'sa combination of library time, work, and
research.....

Can you make this thread sticky for the future purpose, I am going to put 1 may be 2 (if I
had time) more article and hoping other people can fill this thread with meaningful
information.

29/38
AUSTERLITZ said:

An example

30/38


31/38


32/38


5. FALL GELB 1940 :INDIRECT APPROACH + PENETRATION OF THE CENTER

Probably the classic maneuvre campaign of modern military history .The french
plan relied on a Defensive offense which failed.Exhaust the enemy on he
impenetrable Maginot line and a series of river line defensive fronts stretching from
france into Belgium,build up resources and eventually go on the offensive -in a
repeat of what had worked in world war one.The french expected a repeat of 1914
german schliffen plan,which envisaged a huge hook maneuver invading through the
low countries and sweeping into france from the coast and behind Paris which
almost succeeded.As the first map shows the deployment of forces,this time the
main effort was to be in the centre led by Rundstedt's Army group A and
spearheaded by Kleist's Panzer Group (containing 7 out of 10 of germany's panzer
divisions).The Northern army group B under Von bock would invade the low
countries(Belgium and Netherlands) serving as bait -this would entice the bulk of
the french reserves to be shifted northward to meet this attack -an apparent
repeatation of 1914.Meanwhile the main weight of the german assault would fall on
the denuded french centre through the ardennes forest-held as impassable for
tanks.

Map 2 shows the advance of Army group B in Belgium and Netherlands prompting
a premature deployment of his main reserves towards this front by Gamelin in order
to link up with the retreating belgian and dutch armies .Then suddenly on May 14
with the german panzer breakthrough at Sedan in the lightly held ardennes sector

33/38
 the main weight of german forces is revealed.French High command gives a
desperate

order recalling its reserves(see french reverse arrow) but its too late as the allies
are now about to be caught between the advancing germans of Army group B in the
north and Guderian's panzers racing to the french coast about to cut them off from
all communications and supplies with france itself.The retreat order causes large
chaos on top.

Map 3 shows German panzers reach the coast cutting of the best part of the french
army and british expeditionary force in what is called the Flanders pocket.This is a
superb execution of the Indirect appraoch maneuvre.The secondary force (Army
group B) attracted the attention of the main enemy army while using the terrain
cover of the Ardennes forest Army group B of Rundstedt severed the enemy's main
Line of Communications.

Map 4 shows the liquidation of the Flanders pocket culminating at Dunkirk.Holding

forces meanwhile fend off allied attempts to resestablish links with the pocket.After
the destruction of the best part of the allied forces,german forces reorganized and
redeployed.Map 5 and 6 shows the last phase of the campaign,a conventional
broad front attack against the remnant of the french army .The french in this phase
fought stubbornly but were faced with impossible odds having lost the bulk of their
men and material in the flanders pocket.

This campaign can also be seen as an penetration of the centre(strategic scale)

example.Army group C kept french forces behind the maginot line in place,Army
group B drove back the allied left (belgians and dutch) and served as bait for the
main french reserves.The weakened french centre then penetrated and the entire
allied defnsive system split in 2 by the main german attack by Army group A.
Click to expand...

very good example.

Would have give you a positive rating, but someone disabled my
rating panel. I cannot give thanks, positive or negative on anyone anymore bummer

Sine Nomine
ELITE MEMBER

Nov 19, 2014

10,070

34/38
24

12,698

Country

Location

Jan 2, 2017

#13

@jhungary ,thanks Mr Gray

I think most of times this tactics is effective due to strong psychological effect of facing
enemy from front and back and all escape routes block,closing of retreating lines or
occupation of regrouping grounds by enemies actually breaks fighting will of enemy
soldiers in no time,in such case there over all fighting capabilities are reduced.

I will be thankful if you will put forward an Example when well laid Hammer and Anvil
tactics was broken down by counter maneuvers.

jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

Oct 24, 2012

14,423

358

14,136

Country

Location

Jan 3, 2017

35/38
 #14

‫ قناص‬said:
@jhungary ,thanks Mr Gray

I think most of times this tactics is effective due to strong psychological effect of
facing enemy from front and back and all escape routes block,closing of retreating
lines or occupation of regrouping grounds by enemies actually breaks fighting will of
enemy soldiers in no time,in such case there over all fighting capabilities are
reduced.

I will be thankful if you will put forward an Example when well laid Hammer and
Anvil tactics was broken down by counter maneuvers.
Click to expand...

The only case I remember for a well laid Hammer and Anvil blow that went to hell is in
Vietnam War, during Operation Lam Son 719.

The original warplan call for a Mobile Infantry Strike along route 9 into Cambodia. Then a
series of Air Assualt will be launch NVA/VC firebase along Route 9 and forcing them to
route 9 and be wipe out by the main line of Infantry in route 9.

The plan went to shit when the VC/NVA know the ARVN is coming (A short work on intel
where the North realise the troop and material build up, also by northern sympathiser) ,
they have positioned AA and SAM along these firebase to shoot down the helicopter
assault force, then they bring heavy artillery along thsee strong point to pound the ARVN
position day and night, and that is all because the plan have been saw throught by the
North Vietnamese command and the South did not have a contingency plan in place, and
when they were hit by an ambush, they lose their best troop and did not know how to
react.

That also let the South Vietnamese realise one thing, That is their best troop is not
matching the Northern Best troop, and that is a demoralising blow

A.P. Richelieu
SENIOR MEMBER

Dec 20, 2013

6,420

36/38
7

4,175

Country

Location

Jan 3, 2017

#15

AUSTERLITZ said:

Philip of Macedon instituted this as the standard battle tactic of the macedonian
army,with the phalanx as the anvil and the companion cavalry as the
hammer.Hammer and anvil is mostly a broad term for a combined pin and kill attack
with 2 parts of your army which cane be done done by a flank attack or a
single/double envelopment.David Chandler i think developed the concept of 7
classic battle maneuvres(except ambush) -

1.Single flank envelopment

2.Double envelopment
3.Oblique order

4.Penetration of centre

5.Defensive offense
6.Feigned retreat

7.Indirect approach(strategic envelopment)

Napoleon who revolutionized strategy(operational level) used the indirect appraoch

maneuver and the central position move.He also used a 3rd strategic penetration
move but the germans later expanded it and combined it with their schwerpunkt
concept and double envelopment(on a strategic scale) to create the keil und
kessel(wedge and cauldron) which became the staple of their 'blitzkrieg' style.
Click to expand...

The favourite example of (7) beeing the Ulm campaign.

From Wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ulm

37/38


Mack surrenders to Napoleon at Ulm by Paul-Émile Boutigny

On 14 October, Ney crushed Riesch's small corps at the Battle of Elchingen and chased
its survivors back into Ulm. Murat detected Werneck's force and raced in pursuit with his
cavalry. Over the next few days, Werneck's corps was overwhelmed in a series of actions
at Langenau, Herbrechtingen, Nördlingen, and Neresheim. On 18 October he
surrendered the remainder of his troops. Only Archduke Ferdinand Karl Joseph of
Austria-Este and a few other generals escaped to Bohemia with about 1,200 cavalry.
Meanwhile, Soult secured the surrender of 4,600 Austrians at Memmingen and swung
north to box in Mack from the south. Jellacic slipped past Soult and escaped to the south
only to be hunted down and captured in the Capitulation of Dornbirn in mid-November by
Pierre Augereau's late-arriving VII Corps. By 16 October, Napoleon had surrounded
Mack's entire army at Ulm, and three days later Mack surrendered with 25,000 men, 18
generals, 65 guns, and 40 standards.

Some 20,000 escaped, 10,000 were killed or wounded, and the rest made prisoner.
About 500 French were killed and 1,000 wounded, a low number for such a decisive
battle. In less than 15 days the Grande Armée neutralized 60,000 Austrians and 30
generals. At the surrender (known as the Convention of Ulm), Mack offered his sword and
presented himself to Napoleon as, "the unfortunate General Mack."[2][3][4] Bonaparte
smiled and replied, "I give back to the unfortunate General his sword and his freedom,
along with my regards to give to his Emperor."[citation needed] Francis II was not as kind,
however. Mack was court-martialed and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.

38/38