What's easier attacking or defending?

What's easier attacking or defending?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=h5NeWG1Goxg
youtube.com/watch?v=CQpxNA-uku4
youtube.com/watch?v=TZQRsUQVSHE
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mokra
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokra,_Silesian_Voivodeship
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bydgoszcz
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Defending.
Why do you think it's called "home field advantage" and not "unfamiliar land advantage"?.

Defending. However when attacking you have the advantage of retreat. If defending and you start taking heavy losses you're gonna have to fight to the death

attacking your mom's vagina with my dick is pretty easy.

defending my wallet from her thieving hands is not so easy.

Retreat to defend from a different, more defendable and harder to attack position?

>sortieing
>not turtling
Attacking can only be successful when the defenders fail to properly defend themselves.

Lets say you're in a castle and surrounded.

Offensive defense

Attacking. It's harder to both have momentum and impress your will upon the movements and actions of the attacker when you defend.

Defense is a last resort imo

I've you've ever played any game of any kind you'll know that the answer is 'attacking'.

Well, why would you defend in a castle in 2016? Without any support from the outside it means certain destruction. You can still retreat to the upper levels if shit hits the fan tho.

Depends on the weapons being used.

In DoWDC, I loved fighting the Pc 3v1 and seeing how long I could hold out, or even break out. Orks fought to a standstill with me pushed back to the high ground. Ended the game after 2 weeks, they couldn't break my defense but I had no way to strike out. Every time ended in being overrun. Almost took half the map before I was pushed back

Attacking is always easier.

When you attack you dictate the flow of battle. The battle is fought on your terms. If you don't want to fight, then you don't. On defense, you have no such advantage.

This is also extremely obvious if you just take a cursory look at the history book. No one has ever conquered anything by defending the shit out of something and waiting for idiots to fall into their trap. And even if you manage to find an instance where this is true, it is a vastly outnumbered by the instances where a conqueror was the aggressor and crushed people in a swift and decisive attack.

Anyone who argues in the favor of defense is nothing more than a coward.

well generally the enemy will attack if they are sure they are going to win.

Attack
>look for possible weak points
>look for enemy mistakes
>look for good terrain
>look for needed weather
>organize fucktons of troops
>leave some of them back if you fuck up
>more
Defense
>dig a trench, if you cant that means that the enemy will probably be unable or struggle to attack anyway.
>throw troops wherever your enemy has choosen to attack.

Defending is easier, but the attackers typically choose when and where the attack happens.
Because of this the attackers can choose weak spots in the defense's line that would give the attackers an advantage.

>200 B.C. not in the Testudo
>Do you even Legion bro?

>testudo meme

It's always easier to defend in a combat sense.

But if you're attacking it means you are confident and have to advantage in a broader sense.

>current year
>not pillaging the defenders lands so he has to attack you on your terms

>current year
>being a barbarian subhuman

Ever heard of siege tunnels nigga? I mean, as a uk guy you should know that.

Defensive manuevers can result in anywhere from a 1 to 3 force multiplication. So unless you are advantaged 3 to 1 or greater defending will be easier.

For instance, consider two countries with equal armies 1 million strong.

The defenders would have to spread their troops out along the border because if they leave a spot undefended, the attackers could just walk in.
On the other hand, the attacks can concentrate a good portion of their troops on the point of attack.
Also, since WWII artillery, bombers, etc. can make devastating blows to a stationary defensive position before the main attack even starts

That you Hitler?

When equal, defending.
When inferior, defending.
When superior, attacking.
Shit gets tricky when you account modern adventages and disadventages, thousands of factors ranging from terrain, supply to composition and technology, but in general history, defending.

This is retarded, nobody would defent the whole front equally if the enemy only has troops in the single point.
What stopps the defenders from encircling the attacker armies and crushing them?

Pyrhus-Checkmate

I didn't say "all" though.
The attackers just need enough troops at the point of attack to give them an advantage.
The rest of the troops would be spread across the border.
And even though the attackers would have less troops away from the point of attack, it wouldn't be enough to give the defenders an advantage if they were to counter attack.

Say the attackers concentrate 100k at the point of attack, along the rest of the border the defenders would have a power factor of 10 : 9, which is not enough to attack with.

>underage trying to be funny

Monte Casino worked pretty good for the Fallschirmjäger....

Attacking.

You get to pick the when and where, usually.

>Not running down upstart peasants in glorious husaria charge.

Too bad we arrived.

attacking, I literally fight gangwars and being the attack gives you multiple advantages like choosing the terrain, time, location, position of armies etc. Waiting to get attacked in some defensive position is idiocy

In terms of local tactics, defending. You get to stay put and are prepared, other guy has to walk into the lethal shit you've prepared.

In terms of an entire theater, attacking. You want to make the enemy react to what you're doing, so that you can change it faster than they can react and it's no longer the correct response.

This is why attacking is often done by seizing and important area and going "come at me bro". It's also why defending is often done by counter-attacking and cutting off attacking forces.

It doesnt stop the defenders from redirecting soldiers form other parts of the front to the obvious enemy push.
If they know that they basically have the same amount of forces with attackers then nothing would endanger the rest of the front and they are free to move forces away from the safe parts

Defending is generally easier and can be accomplished with fewer men (depending if the position is good and preppared), though the attackers have the advantage of deciding wether or not to push the attack

>Attack or defence
A surprise attack is easier than a surprise defence
=> thus Attack easier than defence

plus attacking is funner than defence

No wonder your country loses every war nowadays.

"Attacking" only works if you can concentrate numbers against a superior force in mobile warfare, or you have superior forces in static warfare.

"Defending" doesnt work in the modern age, since artillery and air power render static positions useless.

Too many factors to decide, but defending implies a level of entrenchment and familiarity with the local area and landscape, so that.

A clever commander can change all of that though.

Jesus christ modern forces don't defend by fortifying a static position. They defend by waiting until the enemy has advanced into friendly territory, and then doing the same thing they do on offense.

Defense is basically counter-attacking with better preparation and shorter supply lines. Defense is waaaaay easier.

That's where the element of surprise come in.
If the defenders don't know where the attack is going to be, they can't focus their defenses. Since the attackers know where the attack will be, they can focus their attack.
The defense can make logical guesses and focus their defense at areas that make sense, but that still creates the possibility of weak points that the attackers can exploit. Not to mention the difference a couple of hours of artillery can make to a defensive position.

>A surprise attack is easier than a surprise defence
>suprise defense
top kek

Defending

The best offense is defense they say.

Wrong.

Youre using incorrect terminology then.

It depends if they know you're coming. The element of surprise is what gives a manlet with a hammer the ability to KO a 6'4 kickboxer and its what causes an unsuspecting village to be sacked by only a few dozen men. Otherwise defending has the advantage.

If that isn't defense, then what would you call the strategies that NATO prepared to defend Western Europe from Soviet invasion during the Cold War?

depends where you are.
The "Germans" defended againstthe Roman because of the black forest and rivers.
Poland got steam rolled because it was a flat pasture corridor between 2 powers.
Islands were easier to set up controlled borders on ( hence the lucrative and dangerous smuggling trade that developed), planes alter that.

Isn't that just an ambush?

Defending - you most likely get to choose the grounds you fight on

Attacking - it's your designs that the enemy has to react to

All that being said wars weren't won through battles but rather through seiges

>Attack or defence
A surprise attack is easier than a surprise defence
=> thus Attack easier than defence

It depends. Who has more missiles, the attackers or defenders?

I'd say attacking. You have initiative and defenders have to respond to your actions.

Surprise attack > Defence > Attack

The biggest reason why Poland got steam rolled was that you and France prevented Poland from mobilizing its armed forces because you were trying to appease Hitler.
The Germans got 50 miles into Poland before they encountered any resistance.

Medieval times : Defend
Present days : Attack

Now you just press a button and wait for the missiles to fuck shit up

André Maginot vs Heinz Guderian, who won?
Ho Chi Minh vs William Westmoreland, who won?

It's all down to the factors of each side. Arguing one is objectively better than the other is retarded.

Depends on which time period you're in. If you're pre WW1, attacking was mostly a good idea provided they weren't using serious defenses. WW1 obviously defending. WW2 obviously attacking.

Are you talking about fucking American football? Fuck off you stupid burger.

Defending gives you greater intelligence of the battlefield you'll be fighting on, and the advantage of being able to preemptively rally your defenses before an attack can commence. It also allows for fortifications to be put in place and other unfamiliar conditions that can be used to surprise the attackers.

Citation: The Changing Nature of War

Also see: Frederick the Great of Prussia, Napoleon Bonaparte, any book on WW1, and any book on WW2.

A surprise attack is a ambush
A surprise defence is when Italy invades Greece and somehow lost to everyone surprise

It's a proven historical fact that defending is advantageous. The most effective tactics in military history almost all revolved around putting your forces in a strong defensive position on the battlefield even during offensive measures.

Offense is necessary in almost any conflict but defense is certainly preferred.

Frog's got it right

I think it's interesting how many people think about warfare only in an historical context.

Attacking provides the aggressor with greater tactical and strategic flexibility. Being proactive is always preferable to being reactive.

Defenders can't win wars.

Didn't work in Normandy.

Today it's about the same if both sides are good armed. In previous times defense was way easier.
But today there are NO fortifications anymore. Everything can be literally leveled with these dreadful inventions and nothing can prevent it:
youtube.com/watch?v=h5NeWG1Goxg
youtube.com/watch?v=CQpxNA-uku4
youtube.com/watch?v=TZQRsUQVSHE

>50 miles propaganda

Dude, we were taken by surprise and yet even civilians in Gdańsk and Bydgoszcz took up arms against them from the very start.

The funny thing is that we actually stopped the german attacks and the first major battle was the battle of Mokra (Check out Bzura, Wizna and Westerplatte, along with defence of Poczta Polska too) Stop spewing shit on my country if you dont know anything, you murican turd.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mokra

Defend of course

defending
england just built a wall across the entrire country to keep us scots out

A FUCKING LEAF

See:
>A proven historical fact.
Your education system is almost as bad as fucking burgerland.

what?
Guderian won by default, since Maginot's creation didn't make it to where the battle actually was, on account of being fixed
Ho Chi Minh won by default, on account of Westmoreland being ordered to pack up and go home
there is no relativity there, you are retarded.

Shhh. Noo. Nope.
Chaos marines was diffrent. Only a week, but finally fell after they sent all demons on me. Normally held it back, but lucky fucks took out my Orbital relay. Launched a final strike on their home bases with assault marines, and took out 1.5 of the 3 enemy based

Mokra is well within the Polish border, idiot
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokra,_Silesian_Voivodeship

Good job user. Someone's been reading Napoleon or Frederick the Great.

Still, it doesn't apply to all time periods.

...

Fuck the past, today you have the strongest army in EU because american jews destroyed other countries from inside.

If we are speaking In purely pre-modern warfare then defending Is easier, assuming the defenders are in a decently defensible place. Attacking almost always results In greater casualties as well as much more supplies used. Sieges for the most part are bad ideas and should only be done when there Is no other option.

All if this shit went out the window with the invention of airplanes and bombs though.

50 miles is 80 kilometres you fucking dumb fuck.

Check out fights in Bydgoszcz, Westerplatte and defence of Poczta Polska in Gdańsk.

To be real with you commited sepukku without honorable thing going on by inviting turks, and saying something about other countries presented on the upper side of the pic will waste my time.

Offense didn't work in Russia. You can cite individual examples of failed offenses and defenses all day, it means nothing without context.

>A FUCKING LEAF
Not an argument.

Above all else you need to consider the context, but defense still generally comes out on top even in modern war UNLESS there is a massive unbalance between the capabilities of two force, in which case the stronger force wins in almost any scenario

For examples of successful defense in modern war just look at the Korean War, or the Iran-Iraq War, you can even see it in the Syrian Civil War. All these wars had fairly balanced forces on each side and the defenders won (or seem to have won) all of them.

>What's harder attacking or defending ?

Ask the guys at Omaha or any other people who tried to take fortified positions.

If it's anything like playing paint ball or laser tag as a kid defending is easier in most situations.

Unless you're Patton or that group who started OP Restrepo.

> you commited sepukku
It were jews.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bydgoszcz
again, well into the Polish border

Also don't come at me with lousy Euro-units.

Artillery

Strategically - Defending
>Defenders get to decide where battles will be fought and how to mount a resistance. Attackers are stuck in foreign land with what they've brought with them.

Tactically - attacking
>Attackers get to force the fight into one that is amenable to them. They have all the energy and aggression

>Polish girl pictured as the fat one.

Really nigga

>i tried to sound like a badass armchair general and got caught

Defense has and will always be a natural advantage in war.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bydgoszcz
Oh god fucking damn it, you are so stupid. Check the borders from 1939, it was the border city with germans.

swallowing

But she is really polish, the flags were NOT changed. Besides, she is not obese, just wide af and a bit chubby.

A shame. She has grube dupsko, and she should work on those thighs and ass. And yeah, she has a nice face.

it's also why managing to force your enemy's hand into pursuing an attack you KNOW to be hopeless is the nastiest trick a general can ever pull

"Vincibility lies in the attack. Invincibility lies in the defense." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

but what the fuck does he know

It depends on the time period and objective.
Previously it would pretty much be defense all the way.

In modern times, attackers have a firepower advantage and we don't really have defenses to keep up with the insane weapons we have.

But that's assuming the goal is to obliterate a defined and defending enemy, if the enemy is too spread out to isolate then they can sit around with some form of minimal Resistance for basically ever.

Ambush attack is easiest. You might call it a Blitzkreig in modern lingo.

Defense of the high ground is next easiest.

>No one has ever conquered anything by defending the shit out of something and waiting for idiots to fall into their trap.

France occupied Germany at the end of WW1

>Rushing headfirst into tanks with horses
>calls others stupid
top kek

I know you're baiting but that never happened and is a common misconception