feudal military strategy about ambushing?

Question

i'm not really sure how it works. but say both you and your enemy are of same military technology level(swords and armor, and horseback calvery). same the enemy is marching to somewhere with 2 units( 5000, 4000 . both mixed with about 35% calvery 65% infantry)

say you have 7000 troops with mixed 35% calvery , 65% infantry and you divide into 3 units with eveness in all 3 aspects(2300 each, 35-65 calvery/infantry mix) and you ambush from 3 sides (1 upfront, 1 from bushes to left, 1 from bushes to right)

would you have the upper hand in this kind of tactic even with fewer numbers?

in terms of individual fight, is it something like you have a 2 bigger guys facing attacks from 3 sides from 3 slightly smaller guys? can somebody with good understanding about this tell me if my idea is right?

Answer 1

An ambush is designed w/ surprise in mind, To hit and run, you would succeed for a short time, until the larger army can organize a counter, and when they do, you could retreat them into another ambush, if you held back more of your troops.

Answer 2

There are basically nine principles of war. You have described a situation where the ambusher maximizes two of them. One is "Surprise", and the other, by attacking from three sides cutting off the enemy's options to move, is "maneuver".

However...that still leaves seven others that might just go against an attacker in this battle, ranging from the mistake of making the three units equals without a central command, to there being no real point to this battle in the first place. It may also be that the ambush is so good, it really didn't require all of the forces, and having kept a hundred men with the baggage train, the victors might not have starved to death in the field after the battle because five lost enemy soldiers found the unguarded supply tents and burned all the food.

There's more to battle than mere battle.

Answer 3

ok now you sound like you mean form mideval times or so. hand to hand stuff? well attacking from three sides is a good idea but the right flank and left flank will not be able to communicate and co-ordinate with eachother. what might work better if you wanna do a three sided attack would be to set 2/3 of your army in a fall back abush and attck on three sides with 1/3 of your amry. after a short engagement you flee and meet up with the fall back and abush the enemy for they would either have fled knowing your tactic or chaced all three units as they fled and spred themslefs thin and they would meet with another three times as strong ambush. you would then in the second ambush attack in a V shape where the head of the V would attack the center and the \ / sides would wrap around and make their numbers usless becuase they would now fight you one on one because no one in the middle could do anything but flee or wait. this tactic was used by some roman dude and makes much sence.

Answer 4

Your best bet is to attack with an L shaped ambush this allows you to keep better control of your own troops an it also lets the enemy think they are going up against one unit, they would focus all their soldiers to the enemy in the front and when they are engaged with them you would hit them from the other side this gives you the Advantage of controlling the battle with out spreading any one unit to thin. But obviously there is allot of ways to do an ambush i just think that's the most effective one.

Answer 5

I do not mean to seem discerning but your questions rely on not knowing the answers to a lot of questions:if troops involving troops deployment, access to intelligence, resources available to attacking unit and possible support of currently deployed personnel. State question in better manner if you expect an intelligent answer.

Answer 6

It is never good to attack with inferior numbers Unless you can attain overpowering fire superiority, and you have no reserve force. I would send my cavalry {calvary is a hill} against one of your units and effectively split you in three with no way out past the oncoming cavalry. Your main error is splitting your cavalry. Mounted attacks are not controllable on three fronts..

Answer 7

its a roll of the dice like the game risk...too much aggression can lead to weakness

Answer 8

A feigned withdrawal sounds like what you are talking about.