OK. So you have the single most advanced weapon in military warfare up to the date - a Gatling Gun - and instead of using that first - you send in your 200 riders. I mean isn't this the worst strategical decision in any military encounter ever. I mean I get ego etc; but wtf!?!?
shareIn general terms, no. The most powerful and most destructive weapons are usually deployed well in to a war and never first. Not unlike chess: The pawns does most of the work before the Queen is used. In this particular battle you may have a point. I will say though that it should be deployed at a time the Commandsr has the overview and knows how and where to plant the winning blow.... so even in short battles this card should be dealt in the later half.
If the Seven had a canon themselves, it would have been the wrong choice to start off with the Gatling. 101 in Military Strategy is to recon and gather intelligence first. Then attack. His riders gave him the intelligence he needed.
___________
** I am normally not a praying man, but if you are up there, please save me Superman **
You are absolutely wrong. If we removed this from being a movie, this guys goal was to destroy the town and kill EVERYONE, there was nothing there he needed nor wanted. His plan in real life would be to level the town then have his men go in as clean up crew.
The wars of which you speak, usually the victor doesn't want to completely destroy what he is attacking as he is trying to take it over for his own.
Actually, I write above that I do not disagree in this particular battle, where we have all the intelligence beforehand. And you are right in that a strategy largely depends on what the end goal is...
However, I talk in general terms. And in general terms, a warlord will hold his most powerful card until he has the proper intelligence on how to win. By just rolling out hard from the beginning he is essentially taking an unnecessary chance. At least from the winning pov of military strategies this is 101 and this is what the OP asks, which is why I replied like this.
Anyway, back to this particular battle. I disagree with you; He did not want to just destroy the town. He did not really know who he was fighting. He knew 7 dudes rode in and per their discussion earlier in the movie they deemed it was the element of surprise that made it possible for 7 dudes to take down all of his men there... In other words, he was going for the 7 men and was not convinced they were all that magnificent. He had no particular interest in destroying the town, and he had certainly no interest in killing the people he used in his mines… once he saw that he was dealing with a hell of a lot more than just 7 angry dudes with grand egos, he changed strategy and made it rain hell. He did not have all the intelligence we had. If he did have, then yes… he would likely begin with his Gatling.
A side note; as he was a ruthless sob, he probably did not care that much about his riders either. Given he paid them 50% down... he likely saved the remaining down-payment if they fell... so from that pov he used them to gather intelligence first and even saved costs in the process... and when he saw what happened, he used his final card.
Why did he loose? I think he lost because he underestimated the magnificence of the whole town... so ultimately the battle was lost because he had improper intelligence.
[EDIT: He ultimately lost because of Faraday's luck of getting to the Gatling and blowing up his most trusted posse in the same blast. If not for this, he would have won.... so an edit to my last sentence above is; the battle was so costly because he did not have the proper intelligence. However, his strategy of attack worked... except even against the best strategies, the Hollywood hero can prevail :-)]
___________
** I am normally not a praying man, but if you are up there, please save me Superman **
good points. i would like to bring one up that another dude on this board mentioned:
the gatling gun was completely stationary and was eventually brought up at a point, where the protagonists and their helpers were already through with their tactics, at least partially hiding, exhausted and also partially wounded. bringing it in at the very beginning could have resulted in a change of tactics and possibly losing said most powerful item early on in the battle, possibly resulting in an even faster loss. how many people were there standing to protect the gun? 5?
If your one winning card is immobile like this Gatling gun was, you need to be very very sure of the battlefield situation before you unveil it. So, in any situation, he has to hold it until he has the proper intelligence. It is simple as that.
Who knows, perhaps the Seven had one too... That being said; had he started with the Gatling, he could have had his whole army protect it in stead of his five or ten most trusted towards the end. But again, had the Seven a canon themselves, this would have been a bad move...
All the arguments aside and the movies shows us it actually was the right strategy. Yes, his hired army fell (which may have some economical benefits to him, as discussed above) but towards the end, he was wining. Had Faraday not thrown the dynamite stick, the baddies would have won. And Faraday's stunt was extremely lucky, if not impossible. Not only did he go against all odds getting to the gun, he also took his most trusted posse down in the blast. So to the OP I say this; even if one does not subscribe to my logic, the evidence in the movie says his strategy of attack worked.
___________
** I am normally not a praying man, but if you are up there, please save me Superman **
completely agreed.
shareAll the arguments aside and the movies shows us it actually was the right strategy. Yes, his hired army fell (which may have some economical benefits to him, as discussed above) but towards the end, he was wining. Had Faraday not thrown the dynamite stick, the baddies would have won. And Faraday's stunt was extremely lucky, if not impossible. Not only did he go against all odds getting to the gun, he also took his most trusted posse down in the blast. So to the OP I say this; even if one does not subscribe to my logic, the evidence in the movie says his strategy of attack worked.
it was sheer foolishness toBut you argue against it yourself. Don't you?
- deploy 90% of an attacking force at one go
But you argue against it yourself. Don't you?
Gather the intelligence first, and then deploy you army and army materiel according to this intel.
What I mean is that when you agree with the OP that Bo should start with the Gatling and then you disagree with Bo that he started with the army... is a contradiction.
The Army and the Gatling are two sides of the same card: both equally impressive and both should have been decisive.
Bo was arrogant and stupid. He attacked without knowing much. And that was his faul.
What I mean is that when you agree with the OP that Bo should start with the Gatling and then you disagree with Bo that he started with the army... is a contradiction.
Hmmm, I actually don't think you are agreeing with him/her :) I agree with pretty much all you say and surly starting with the Gatling would have taken the 7 with surprise and likely the battle would have had a better outcome for Bo. So sure, why not? The OP though asks more generally imo, and generally starting with the one powerful but vulnerable weapon one has without knowing much about the enemy is foolish too. I dare say, you agree??? Had the 7 a canon, he might have lost the gun before it had a chance to do much..... so my advice to Bo is to take it easy... get an overview and then hit hard.
___________
** I am normally not a praying man, but if you are up there, please save me Superman **
Well i never saw any of his men report back any kind of intelligence. So you must be referring to what he was able to see of the good guys after the battle began. Not sure what time period of military tactics you are referring to, and i am certainly no expert, but i do believe a common tactic in warefare when attacking a beachhead is to pepper it with your heavy artillary before sending in your ground troops or cavalry. Riding into a situation where your enemy has had time to put up defenses would be extremely foolish, and i would never consider a cavalry charge to be recon. A cavalry charge is an endgame move once you have seperated and softened the enemy up. Unloading a magazine into the town would have disoriented an already barely organized defense force, could cause the good guys to panic and change their plans on the fly. That would be your goal as the attacker. Riding into town as if your enemy has not had seven days to prepare just seems stupid. However, the main bad guy did not seem to be a seasoned military commander (maybe i missed the part where they said he was), so it makes his poor strategy believable in that way alone.
shareNot sure what time period of military tactics you are referring toSun Tzu's "Art of War" is a good place to start and it was written 500 BC although its western publication saw the light of day not long after the middle ages. I guess this is the most famous War Strategy book even to this day, and one of its greater points in it is to know your enemy first.
I agree with you. My specific comment about the time period of military strategy was based on the fact that many attacks start with artillary and lead to a ground assault. The allies did not storm the beaches of normandy before blasting them frome the sea. They also had recon info and the airborne drop in behind enemy lines, which supports the gathering intelligence point many have made. However, i believe bombarding an enemy to soften them up before sending in ground/mounted troops has been a common strategy for a while. I disagreed with whoever tried to compare the cavalry charge to recon. When you dont have the best infirmation going into a battle, blast them with your heavy guns to confise them and feel them out, dont iust charge at them.
shareWe agree :)
Though it may have been me who said that his first charge collected intelligence. But to be clear, I do not think this was clever at all and it was just a "by product" of his mistake. All I say is that he at least got some intelligence from this first failed charge which should make him more confident that his enemy did not have any hidden weapons to rival his Gatling (his wining card). Before his cavalry charge, he could not have known this and possibly wondered on some level (why else even bring the Gatling... his 200 men should have dealt with a 7 dude problem like cutting warm butter).
The thing is that he had only two cards. An army of 200 men and one canon. It is impressive indeed, but to an unknown enemy... not necessarily enough. Common strategy is to start bombarding an enemy, as you say, if you are equal or superior in force. Otherwise, do not. The Art of War makes quite a few points about this. That if one goes head first, the one with the largest head will always win (paraphrasing). D Day worked, because the Allies had fooled Hitler that their attack would come from another side. Not because they bombarded and employed land troops in the right order. Yes, paramount indeed but they ultimately won D-Day because they surprised Hitler.
So imo, military strategy 101 says: do not attack an enemy greater than you. Use guerrilla, separate and attack weak points... repeat. It was not until after the first charge that Bo knew he was greater. He believe he was clearly, but he did not know for sure until after the first charge and then he threw in his Ace.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
I agree that D-Day worked largely because of misinformation and the fact that the Atlantic wall had to be so large and spread out because the allied landing site was unknown. I was simply using it as an example of bombarding an enemy before advancing. I dont think bombarding the enemy did a whole lot to help them because they were so well dug in. Utah and Omaha beaches remained heavily fortified even after being blasted, and the airborne did not take them out either.
shareyes, one wonders why they did not bomb target the bunkers with greater success... I guess it was because surprise was the key, and so the attack had to be compressed to succeed... or perhaps the bunkers were simply too fortified for air-to-land bombs to be effective?
___________
** I am normally not a praying man, but if you are up there, please save me Superman **
Yes but attacker knew that the defenders are 7 men and farmers. And they were like 100 man? At first he may think why the *beep* waste expensive bullets for expensive weapon?
share[deleted]
So, you're saying that 'gathering intelligence' is actually charging on your horse into town and get shot instantly? Great tactics, you sure win some wars with that.
shareNo I am not saying that. But from a failed attack one can only learn.
And where he knew nothing before his riders, he at least learned something after. Naturally foolish of him to attack blindly like that. He should have done some recon first. Had he, he would likely have started with his gargling.
Yeah, thought the same thing myself, but then if they had killed the seven from outside the village and the bad guy won, it would have made a pretty crap movie... Couldve done that but they'd have had to retitle it the pretty sh7t seven.
shareThey had lots of gatling gun ammunition. Just salt the town with the gatling gun to make a chaos and then rush in with the riders to kill the rest.
shareHey guys its a movie not real life. If they had used the gatling gun at the beginning the movie would be over. It has to look like the 7 are on top and then the gatling gun is a surprise. I loved the 60's version and really liked this one. It was what a movie is supposed to be - "Entertaining" If you want real life stop watching movies and stick to documentaries.
shareNot a terrible strategy.
That big gatling gun was completely stationary and therefore vulnerable. Revealing it at the wrong moment in the battle would have allowed someone to just ride over and blow it up right at the start of the battle. Remember, when they arrive, the bad guys don't know who is hiding where and what kind of trap is waiting for them. All they know is there are 7 fighters and some more villagers that are definitely going to attack them. Your strategy is great for someone who watched the entire battle play out and then comes up with some kind of Monday Morning Quarterback gameplan. You could also make up a whole strategy that would have worked for the good guys if they knew the gatling gun was coming!
Exactly
___________
** I am normally not a praying man, but if you are up there, please save me Superman **
It was a bad strategy, considering how powerful the gatling gun was portrayed in this film. The G-gun apparently out ranged all the rifles (or someone would have shot the operator). He could have just sat back and chewed them up.
BUT, If you think about how the bad guy has to pay each guy in the huge mercenary army afterwards if they survive, then it is actually more cost effective to get the army killed. So the cartoon villain let's loose his infantry fodder, because gatling gun rounds are probably more expensive :)
.... but only because you know the Seven would be no match. He did not know this. What if the Seven had a canon of their own.... he would have lost his Gatling perhaps even before he fired it.
___________
** I am normally not a praying man, but if you are up there, please save me Superman **
No one is riding up on a gattling gun and surviving. If you have superior weapons than your enemy you use them you dont save them for after 90% of your men are already dead. As for the people saying the good guys had a canon. They had it loaded with whatever the canon equivalent of buck shot is. It looked like it was made out of a log and i doubt with 40 shots they could have hit that stationary gattling gun with a 2 foot Unrigled barrel on a cannon. Where would they be getting cannon balls anyway? Their canon was an extremely close range weApon that looked like it wouldnt be firing more than once. Plus if you unload the gattling gun you keep your 200 men in reserve to protect it. No one is riding up in it. To be really realistic shouldnt they have just laid seige to the town and starved them out while firing volleys occasionally?
shareYou are right on all accounts. But the key word here is "if you have superior weapons". First he needs to access if this is so. And he did not.
His 100 men army should have been superior too according to what he knew about his 7 men enemy. It wasn't, and therefore he lost it. His Gatling proved to be superior, but IF they had had a canon or perhaps even a Gathling themselves... it might not have been. Fact is, he knew close to nothing about his opposition.
The Gatling here was supernatural in its range and precision and force, if compared to how a Gatling actually was/is... so, a canon could too have been supernatural if we follow the rules of the movie... my point is just that I agree with; "If you have superior weapons than your enemy you use them". But he did not really know this until well in to the battle.
He could have won this battle, and with way less costs if had he read the Art of War.
___________
** I am normally not a praying man, but if you are up there, please save me Superman **
Good point.
sharewell, it depends. If he only wanted to destroy the town, it should have it used at first.
If he wanted the usable infrastructure to developp his dominion, using his small army to kill the insurgents would be a preferable strategy.
These peasants resisted against the mighty Bogue, and therefore deserved to have lead spewed all over their town!
shareI just figured it was a last measure and surprise if something went wrong.
Also, like they said in Braveheart: Arrows cost money. Use up the Irish.
You don't have to pay a dead men.
Probably not as it would cost a lot more than the guys being sent in.
share