In military strategy is it better to have shit soldiers in the front and better soldiers in the back : or is it better...

In military strategy is it better to have shit soldiers in the front and better soldiers in the back : or is it better to have better soldiers in the front and shit soldiers in the back?

It would be best to use the shit soldiers as a distraction while the good soldiers counter from the rear.

theyre all shit. hence the title infantry

INFANT-ry. theyre infants.

In traditional warfare it's the former. These were your "front line" soldiers who wore very little armor because speed was most important at the start of the battle.

What about friendly fire though as soldiers will be behind the enemy taking fire from the soliders in front of the enemy


Wouldn't shit soldiers get beaten/ outclassed quicker? You'd lose more man power while taking less enemies

IT USED TO MATTER
you know when people swung swords

its a totally different ballgame with guns and modern warfare

How is it different? Same tactics at the end of the day. Use infantry man to rush enemy/ draw them out then better soldiers to finish the job

>regulars.
>reserves.

Who goes to the front first?

The reserve is usually shit soliders. Kids, old men, and people that are weak. They usually put the good soldiers forward

No.

One of the essential teachings of Sun Tzu was to tire your opponents while conserving energy. The front acted to separate, distract, tire, and absorb the initial brunt of the impact.

Call of Duty isn't relevant faggot

That's the point I was trying to make my guy.

used to use experience young men to tire them out, then sent in the fresh more experienced fighters to mop up the exhausted survivors.

bombs airstrike drones etc... its totally different
you do not get tried "shooting guns" the way you do swings a heavy piece of steel and a shield.

the highest skilled covert ops types are often sent in advance or by themselves to destroy a high value targets. In advance of the main army coming. etc....

In cucked western armies the shit soldiers would be the stronk independent womyn in combat roles now.
I can only hope they get used as meatshields in the next big war. Shit would be hilarious.

Best way is mongols way
>use enslaved enemies as meat shield to waste ammon and spread fatigue to the enemy forces ans THEN hit em with your actual troops

How could an excellent fighter be beaten or tire from a shit fighter though? Even if you had battalions of shit soldiers it wouldn't matter if they were fighting battalions of good soldiers.

It's best to send the good soldiers to the front and send the shit soldiers home.

...

You know what man there's just basic connections your brain should be making here I can't keep talking to you I'm fucking sorry lol.

Wouldn't the slaves just run/ not fight? Their gonna die anyway, what's the point of helping the ppl that captured you

Not him, the point is to make the enwmy vet tired and suffer losses while your better troop either wait, while refresh, flank or charge in the nth wave.


Or Just get a lot shit tier dudes and overrun them. Worked for the ussr during ww2

the romans put they're most shit first and veterans back

What? You just locate the enemy and kill them with air support.

You always put the best in the back, you use the cannon fodder to soak up most of the enemy firepower and wear them out, then hit them hard with the good stuff.
Strategy 101 yo

Doesnt matter, the mongol would hunt them down with thier fast horses or they die by fighting. Not to mention the mongol used some badass measure against rebellion or disobeying like razing and genocide entire cities or nations

It's better to not do line formations and wait for your enemy to approach.
>like how we beat Britain.

There's a reason they call weak soldiers cannon fodder.

Of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be here.
Eighty are nothing but targets.
Nine are real fighters and we are lucky to have them...they make the battle.
Ah, but the One, One of them is a Warrior and he will bring the others back.

-Hericletus (circa 500 B.C.)

Well the first thing to understand is that the #1 mission of infantry is to take land and hold it. What needs to happen is you want to convince the men on the land you want to unass it. You will not kill them all. Hell you may not fire a shot. So as long as the soldiers can maneuver as needed then the job gets done.

Operation get behind the darkies works just as well

you are thinking men make the difference.
>and that where ur wrong kiddo.
all the men necessary for a 2010+ war is reconnaissance and people to build your infrastructure afterwards. the whole fighting part is done by drones now, and what drones can do sell-swords can (whats the modern term? hired guns?)