Blog

<h2>Gaining the Advantage</h2><p>Before a decision can be forced, an advantage must be gained. We strive to gain an advantage over our adversary by exploiting every aspect of a situation to secure victory. We win not by overpowering him with our own strength, but by punishing mistakes and never letting go of the initiative. This post will discuss several ways to generate leverage and gain an advantage over the enemy.</p><p>A unit may be smaller, less equipped, or outnumbered, yet still hold the advantage if it can act faster, think clearer, or exploit weaknesses better than its opponent. Take, for example, the American Indian ambush technique. A small number of warriors would draw a superior force into close terrain, where a larger force would quickly surround and ambush the soldiers. The enemy went from pursuing to being defeated.</p><h3>Combined Arms</h3><p>The use of combined arms is a key means of gaining advantage. It is based on the idea of presenting the enemy not merely with a problem, but with a dilemma—a no-win situation. We combine supporting arms, organic fires, and maneuver in such a way that any action the enemy takes to avoid one threat makes him more vulnerable to another. For example, an entrenched enemy should discover that if he stays hunkered down in fighting holes, indirect fire and close air support will blast him out. If he comes to attack, the infantry will cut him down. If he tries to retreat, mechanized infantry and airpower will pursue him to his destruction. That is combined arms.</p><p>Modern tactics are combined arms tactics. That is, it combines the effects of various arms—infantry, armor, indirect, aviation, and now drones—to achieve the greatest possible effect against the enemy. Artillery and infantry, for example, are often employed together because their capabilities complement each other. At the same time, the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of each arm are protected by the other arm's capabilities.</p><p>There is still a tendency in each separate unit... to be a one-handed puncher. By that I mean that the rifleman wants to shoot, the tanker to charge, the artilleryman to fire... That is not the way to win battles. If the band played a piece first with the piccolo, then with the brass horn, then with the clarinet, and then with the trumpet, there would be a hell of a lot of noise but no music. To get harmony in music, each instrument must support the others. To get harmony in battle, each weapon must support the other. Team play wins. - General Patton, 1941</p><h3>Maneuver</h3><p>Maneuver provides us a means to gain an advantage over the enemy. In too many battles, one or both sides have sought to gain an advantage in combat through firepower and attrition. In World War 1, one side would rush across no-mans-land under murderous fire and attempt to push an opponent off the desired terrain. If the attack succeeded—and few did—the enemy counterattacked, reoccupying the same terrain they had before. The cost in casualties and equipment was high and often produced no decisive results. We want to avoid this type of engagement.</p><p>Traditionally, maneuver has meant moving in a way that gains positional advantage. For example, we may maneuver by enveloping an exposed enemy flank, by denying the enemy terrain critical to his goals, or by seizing a position that allows us to fire at the enemy while protecting us against their fire. We may maneuver in other dimensions as well. For instance, we may also maneuver in time by increasing relative speed and operating at a faster tempo than the enemy. Normally, we maneuver both in time and space to gain advantage and, ultimately, victory at the least possible cost.</p><h3>Exploiting the Environment&nbsp;</h3><p>The environment offers tremendous opportunities to gain an advantage over the enemy. We must understand the characteristics of any environment where we may have to operate. More importantly, we must understand how terrain, weather, and darkness or reduced visibility affect our own and our adversary’s ability to fight.</p><p><strong>Terrain</strong></p><p>Our objective is to employ tactics that turn the terrain to our advantage and disadvantage our opponent. Terrain impacts our maneuver and influences our dispositions. We must understand terrain and comprehend its effects, as it may limit our movement, reduce our visibility, or restrict our fires. We must be aware that the enemy also seeks advantage from terrain, and is shaping their maneuver and dispositions just as it is shaping ours.</p><p><strong>Weather</strong></p><p>Since the weather affects Roblox minimally, I will skim over it. However, understanding weather, and specifically (for Roblox especially), the effects it has on visibility is vital. Weather that limits your visibility also limits the enemy's, and you can use it to outmaneuver them without being spotted.</p><p><strong>Darkness or Reduced Visibility</strong></p><p>Similarly to weather, units that can operate effectively in the hours of darkness or during periods of reduced visibility often gain a significant advantage over their opponents. Reduced visibility can make the simplest of tasks difficult to accomplish. This obvious disadvantage can be turned to our advantage by forces trained, equipped, and able to operate at night. Night operations can produce great gains against a force that cannot operate at night.</p><h3>Complementary Forces</h3><p>Complementary forces are the idea of fix-and-flank and are an important way to gain an advantage. The idea behind complementary forces is to use our forces as a hammer and anvil by crushing the enemy between two or more powerful actions. For example, consider an enemy squad hiding behind the military crest of a hill. From the front, it is protected, and if we attempt to maneuver, the enemy can simply maneuver as well to remain behind the hill. However, if we keep one fireteam there and maneuver another fireteam to the enemy’s flank, then the enemy is now vulnerable, as they can no longer use the hill for protection against both.</p><p>Sun Tzu described this concept as the cheng and the ch'i. The cheng is the more direct, obvious action. It fixes the enemy. The ch'i is the unexpected or extraordinary action. It is the bid for a decision, or, as we call it today, the main effort. These two actions work together against the enemy. The concept is basic, but it can be implemented in a variety of combinations limited only by our imagination.</p><h3>Surprise</h3><p>Achieving surprise can greatly increase leverage. In fact, surprise can often prove decisive. We try to gain surprise through deception, stealth, and ambiguity. Sun Tzu stated that “War is based on deception,”. We use deception to mislead our opponents about our real intentions and capabilities.<br>Surprise can be generated through stealth. Stealth is advantageous when maneuvering against an enemy. It reduces the chance of detection, leaving the enemy vulnerable to surprise attacks for which he may be unprepared. We may also employ stealth through ambush, which is perhaps the most effective means of surprise, especially at the lower tactical level, where surprise is easiest to achieve.</p><h3>Asymmetry</h3><p>Fighting asymmetrically means gaining an advantage through imbalance, applying strength against an enemy's weakness. Fighting asymmetrically means using dissimilar techniques and capabilities to maximize our strengths while exploiting the enemy's weaknesses. Fighting asymmetrically means fighting the enemy on our terms rather than on his. By fighting asymmetrically, we do not have to be numerically superior to defeat the enemy. We only need to exploit his vulnerabilities. For example, using infantry to fight enemy infantry is symmetrical. Using attack helicopters to engage enemy infantry is fighting asymmetrically.</p><h3>From Advantage to Decision</h3><p>Gaining the advantage is not the end state. It is the pathway to decision. Once an advantage is established, it must be exploited. Failing to act allows the enemy time to recover and rebalance the fight.</p><p>Advantage creates opportunity. Decisive action converts opportunity into victory.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Modern warfare still rewards those who gain the advantage early and maintain it relentlessly. Technology may change, but the fundamentals remain the same. Combined arms, maneuver, surprise, complementary forces, the environment, and asymmetric warfare all shape outcomes long before the final blow is struck.<br>This is what Sun Tzu meant when he wrote: "Therefore, a skilled commander seeks victory from the situation and does not demand it of his subordinates."</p>

TACTICS SERIES: POST 3 | Gaining the Advantage

<h2>Achieving a Decision: Turning Opportunity Into Victory</h2><p>In war, every action has one main goal: to force a decision. We are often reminded that firepower, numbers, or perfect plans alone do not win battles. Victory happens when a force breaks the enemy’s ability to resist, whether physically, mentally, or morally. To "achieve a decision" means shaping events so the enemy can no longer keep fighting. In the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805, Napoleon's strategic ingenuity forced the combined forces of Austria and Russia into disarray, leaving them unable to continue the fight effectively. This not only led to a decisive French victory but also underscored the importance of breaking the enemy’s cohesion rather than merely overpowering them.<br></p><p>This idea is simple, but not easy. Making a decision requires judgment, timing, and a willingness to act with purpose even in the face of uncertainty.</p><h3>The Goal: Shatter Cohesion, Not Just Bodies</h3><p><br>One of the most important lessons from Marine Corps doctrine is that warfare is fundamentally psychological. The point is <em>not </em>to wipe out every enemy element, but to attack what holds them together. When an enemy loses cohesion—when their plans unravel, their leaders lose control, their units hesitate—<em>the battle is already decided</em>, even if many of their forces remain intact.<br></p><p>Achieving a decision is about creating that break.<br></p><p>Sometimes it comes from overwhelming violence at the right moment. Sometimes it’s caused by a small disruption—a flank collapsing, an element being isolated, or a rapid shift in tempo that the enemy can’t match. The scale matters less than the effect: the enemy becomes unable to continue effective resistance.</p><h3>Tempo: Acting Faster Than the Enemy Can React<br></h3><p>Maneuver warfare emphasizes tempo. The side that cycles through observation, orientation, decision, and action faster gains control of the fight. In practice, this looks like:</p><ul><li>Acting before the enemy finishes thinking<br></li><li>Forcing them into a reactive posture<br></li></ul><p>Giving them problems faster than they can solve them<br><br>When we keep up the tempo, we take the initiative. If the enemy is always reacting, they lose cohesion, and chances for decisive action open up. <br><br>Making a decision often depends on identifying these moments and acting on them immediately.</p><h3>Surfaces, Gaps, and Exploiting Opportunity<br></h3><p>History teaches that no enemy is strong everywhere. They have surfaces, which are strengths, and gaps, which are weaknesses. A force that can spot these patterns can shape the battle before any decisive action starts.<br></p><ul><li>A surface invites avoidance.</li><li>A gap invites exploitation.</li></ul><p>The key is to avoid fighting the battle exactly as the enemy wants. Instead, we should fight in a way that exposes and widens their weaknesses. When we break through a gap and attack the enemy from within, we often create a significant impact that leads to a quick decision.</p><h3>The Decisive Action: When to Strike<br></h3><p>In war, decisive actions rarely happen under perfect conditions. They come from <strong>bold judgment at the right time</strong>. Leaders need to be ready to act when an opportunity is just starting to appear, not when it is already clear.<br></p><p>The decisive moment might be:</p><ul><li>When the enemy commits their reserve</li><li>When their communication wavers</li><li>When their flank overextends</li><li>When their attention is fixed on the wrong threat</li></ul><p>What matters most is noticing when the enemy is vulnerable and using combat power to take full advantage of that weakness.</p><h3>Maintaining Pressure: The Follow-Through</h3><p><br>Even after a decisive strike, the enemy might try to regain control. Doctrine stresses <strong>pursuit <em>and </em>exploitation</strong>, meaning we keep pressing the attack so the enemy cannot recover. This is where many battles are truly won. If we wait too long, the enemy might pull themselves together again, and the decision could be delayed or lost.<br></p><p>To achieve a decision, we must:<br></p><ul><li>Follow success rapidly<br></li><li>Keep the enemy off balance<br></li><li>Deny them time to reorganize<br></li><li>Victory is confirmed when the enemy can no longer mount meaningful resistance.</li></ul><h3>Why It Matters Today</h3><p><br>Modern conflicts remain deeply dependent on quick decision-making and the ability to disrupt an opponent's cohesion. Despite advances in technology, the core principles persist. For instance, in Ukraine, forces deployed drone swarming technology to rapidly disorient opposing units, demonstrating how modern tactics apply age-old military strategies.<br></p><ul><li>Think faster<br></li><li>Act faster<br></li><li>Exploit weakness<br></li><li>Break cohesion<br></li><li>Press the advantage<br></li></ul><p>Achieving a decision is more than just a phrase from doctrine. It is a mindset: win by making the enemy unable to keep fighting.</p>

TACTICS SERIES: POST 2 | Achieving a Decision: Turning Opportunity Into Victory

<h2><br>Understanding Tactics: An Overview<br></h2><p>The mission of every Warfighter is to win--victory is the only option. Winning requires many things: excellence in techniques, an appreciation of the enemy, exemplary leadership, battlefield judgement, and focused combat power. Yet these factors by themselves do not ensure success in battle. Many armies, both winners and losers, have possessed many or all of these attributes. When we examine the differences between victor and vanquished, we draw one conclusion. Winning in combat depends upon tactical leaders who can think creatively and act decisively. This series pertains to all leaders, whether their force is a fire team or a division; it applies to all. Everyone faces tactical decisions in battle regardless of their roles. Tactical leaders must develop and hone their warfighting skills through study and practice.&nbsp;</p><p>Tactics is "the art and science of winning engagements and battles. It includes the use of firepower and maneuver, the integration of different arms, and the immediate exploitation of success to defeat the enemy." This description is from Marine Corps doctrine and reflects our approach to tactics.&nbsp;</p><p>Tactics are the purposeful actions taken to win engagements and create an advantage over the enemy. They involve arranging and employing forces in ways that fit the situation, exploit opportunities, and impose problems the enemy cannot solve. Tactics require an understanding of the environment, the mission, the enemy, and one’s own unit's capabilities. </p><p>Tactics is a combination of art and science to gain victory over the enemy. The art of tactics lies in how we creatively form and apply military force in a given situation. It involves the creation, positioning, and maneuvering of combat power. When do we flank the enemy, and when do we ambush him? When do we attack, and when do we retreat? How do we use speed and momentum to achieve a decisive advantage? This creativity is a developed capacity and acquired through education, practice, and experience.&nbsp;</p><h3>The Environment</h3><p>The tactical environment is defined by uncertainty, friction, disorder, and constant change. No situation is ever perfect or fully known, and even simple tasks become difficult under the pressures of combat. </p><p>An example of how the environment can further chaos and confusion is the amphibious assault on the island of Tarawa in World War 2. Between the heavy fire, the lack of effective communication, and the landing craft carrying reinforcements and supplies being unable to cross a coral reef, the entire 2nd Marine Division faced eradication. Robert Sherrod, a correspondent for "<em>Time</em>" and "<em>Life," called it "war at its worst."</em>&nbsp;</p><p>The enemy is not a passive obstacle but an intelligent, adaptive force actively trying to disrupt our plans. Terrain, weather, time, and the limits of human beings all add additional layers of complexity. Because of this, the tactical environment demands flexibility, awareness, and the ability to make decisions with incomplete information.</p><p>A tactician must understand that the environment will never be ideal. Plans will break down, communications will fail, and the situation will shift faster than expected. Instead of seeking perfect clarity, we must learn to operate effectively within this uncertainty. Success comes from recognizing patterns, identifying opportunities, and acting despite the chaos—not waiting for conditions to improve. This ability to think, adapt, and overcome within a dynamic environment is the heart of effective tactics.</p><p>This chaotic environment also brings opportunity. Clausewitz wrote about combat, "No other human activity is so continuously... bound up with chance." The challenge is to recognize opportunity when it arises amid chaos and uncertainty, and to seize it to achieve a clear, unambiguous victory. When viewed through time, even the most chaotic of systems may reveal recurring patterns that may then be exploited. The experienced tactician will look for these recurring patterns that can be exploited to advantage.&nbsp;</p><h3>Deterministic vs. Probabilistic</h3><p>How we view the combat environment largely determines how we operate in it. There are two competing views of combat: Deterministic and Probabilistic. The deterministic view argues that combat is predictable. Among the advocates of this view are military theorists who seek prescriptive rules for battle and analysts who predict battle outcomes based upon force ratios. The other view is that combat is chaotic and uncertain. In this probabilistic view, battle is seen as a complex phenomenon in which participants interact with one another and respond and adapt to their environment. The probabilistic viewpoint sees combat as unpredictable. </p><p>The deterministic view often leads to centralized control, micromanagement, and stifled initiative, inhibiting a unit's ability to adapt and change, which may leave them overwhelmed.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The probabilistic view recognizes the complexity and uncertainty of war, leading to a decentralized approach to control. It places greater trust in subordinates to achieve a desired result through the use of mission order and commander's intent. Subordinates can handle unforeseen situations and seize opportunities as they arise. We advocate this view as it allows us to remain flexible, cope with uncertainty, and operate in an ever-changing combat environment. As one tactics manual put it more than half a century ago: "The leader who frantically strives to remember what someone else did in some slightly similar situation has already set his feet on a well-traveled road to ruin."&nbsp;</p><p>Leaders must remember that there are no fixed rules and no precise checklists, but there are bounds. We study examples of successes and failures not to emulate, but to increase our own tactical competence.&nbsp;</p><p>In the next post of this series, we will review how to achieve a decision in a combat environment.&nbsp;</p>

TACTICS SERIES: POST 1 | Understanding Tactics: An Overview

<h2>The Science of War</h2><p>When most people think about war, they picture the tactical level. They imagine squads moving through streets—soldiers clearing rooms. Fire teams bounding. Vehicles peeling off a line of departure. It is natural: that is the level that is visible, filmed, and easiest to understand.</p><p>But the deeper reality is that warfare is not won at that scale. Individual tactical actions matter, of course. But once you zoom out, the factors that actually determine victory shift. The world becomes more abstract. The "game" becomes more like competitive decision-making than individual technique. You leave the realm of "how to stack up on a doorway" and enter the realm of "how to shape the entire conflict so the enemy runs out of choices."</p><p>If you have ever picked up books like Clausewitz's "On War," you will see a lot of confusing terms. You will most likely be disappointed that he shows no drawings of tactics, battle drills, or the like at any point. But this is indeed the magic of a book that comes from a time and age when the horse was a relevant asset on the battlefield, and still is in a day and age of tanks and drones.</p><p>This article is about that jump. Higher warfighting theory. The attempt to understand the more profound logic of war, not just the drills.</p><figure id="figure-9c4skzb8rmho38v3x"><img id="9c4skzb8rmho38v3x" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/85zpPSeceWtETsnuixpUGbcPBSEA2DDz2sgHcxVi2m9aZHR7qAQdop8XwPfnN1qK.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 1/1; object-position: 0% 20%;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="1:1" data-caption="" data-positionx="0%" data-positiony="20%" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/85zpPSeceWtETsnuixpUGbcPBSEA2DDz2sgHcxVi2m9aZHR7qAQdop8XwPfnN1qK.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 1/1; object-position: 0% 20%;"></figure><p><strong>Why higher-level theory matters</strong></p><p>Combat operations are so complex, with many interlocking factors such as terrain, morale, enemy, luck, and boldness, that we just can't set up formulas to predict the outcome of a battle. Therefore, military game theory is largely abstract. All that can be done is to isolate and analyze the core principles from past battles. Warfighting theory is, therefore, a soft science and of the realm of effects.</p><p>What effect do you want to impose? Where do you want to impose it? What is the fastest path to creating that effect? What assumption about the enemy are you exploiting? </p><p>This is why higher war theory feels closer to game theory than to range tables. At the strategic and operational levels, you are constantly looking at choices: the enemy's preferences, your own choices, and which decisions constrain the battlefield in your favor.</p><p>Clausewitz understood this.</p><p>He was criticized for being too abstract — but he was working at the level where drawing a diagram is almost meaningless. The real levers of war are rarely map-clean enough to be diagrammed like a football playbook.</p><p>At higher levels, you deal with:</p><p>- Friction<br>- Uncertainty<br>- Fluidity<br>- Disorder<br>- Complexity<br>- The Human Dimension<br>- Violence and Danger<br>- Physical, Moral, and Mental Forces</p><p>These elements are real — but they are not systems you can reduce to a simple function. You cannot predict how humans react to novelty, surprise, pain, despair, or sudden opportunity.</p><p>War remains, to this day, part science and part art.</p><p>So, higher war theory forces us to extract principles rather than formulas. Principles are not precise. But they are reliable guidance — distilled from a long history.</p><h3><strong>Principles</strong></h3><p>Mass</p><p>When talking about mass, we are referring to the quantity and quality of a force. Mass is not just sheer manpower; it's the overall "combat value" of a deployed force. Think of mass more along the lines of "weight" than of "numbers". Yes, an infantry squad has the same number of personnel as a tank platoon. But who has the higher impact? Most of the time, it's the tank platoon or even an individual tank.</p><figure id="figure-2ydcltax73mho4khmy"><img id="2ydcltax73mho4khmy" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/75YneTEmMh3V5WFNkTUWJoPMzII91FKVDvlCq6LLnyPe35Yz7s2RpbZM5z5TKjgg.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/75YneTEmMh3V5WFNkTUWJoPMzII91FKVDvlCq6LLnyPe35Yz7s2RpbZM5z5TKjgg.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><p>Generally, mass is considered the most important predictor for warfare. Bringing in a mass that is significantly higher than the opponent's will most likely result in victory in decisive engagements. We should, however, also include factors like quality of training in our calculations of mass.</p><figure id="figure-ma6fwgb81mho4luwm"><img id="ma6fwgb81mho4luwm" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/63XSL154sxKyr8X5LNz78HqtFy19r1NDjI9rWHAGanYRHiSstcZE7y5QyNnDjSW6.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/63XSL154sxKyr8X5LNz78HqtFy19r1NDjI9rWHAGanYRHiSstcZE7y5QyNnDjSW6.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><p><strong>Density</strong></p><p>What density describes is nothing else but the amount of dispersion or force concentration applied. A unit with a high mass that is stretched over a large AO may be inferior to a unit with a lower mass that’s applying force concentration.</p><figure id="figure-php3rqi0uimho4m4zn"><img id="php3rqi0uimho4m4zn" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1c096SD8MZ0OwaykJbwkWOobcFGU8T4H4AogQL6ncyfWigdSNXH4zlvoIofQ9pp2.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1c096SD8MZ0OwaykJbwkWOobcFGU8T4H4AogQL6ncyfWigdSNXH4zlvoIofQ9pp2.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><p>Density should however also consider things like overlapping field of fire, terrain considerations can have a major impact on fields of fire. As soon as they are not interlocking or overlapping the element in question will have gaps. Gaps in a layered air defense may for example create weak points.</p><figure id="figure-g8nsomc1a4mho4mecb"><img id="g8nsomc1a4mho4mecb" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/2dtdqwJr6nj4IsGsd7RqvQSgb6NjlUqaKVwI8rwN2PWdg3oTlsXrQ0uhWoZBzhTG.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/2dtdqwJr6nj4IsGsd7RqvQSgb6NjlUqaKVwI8rwN2PWdg3oTlsXrQ0uhWoZBzhTG.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><p><strong>Surface</strong><br></p><p>Surface takes the theory of mass and density to another level. Will the attacking or defending force be able to project a high amount of its mass on the enemy? Terrain and security measures play a huge role here. As soon as terrain channelizes an axis of attack, the attacker cant bring all of his force into direct kinetic engagements. Meaning that a lot of his mass will be idle. Surface also applies to basics such as infantry formations, a column attacked from the front needs to change formation in order to optimize its surface.</p><figure id="figure-ntiqm4a28hmho4mnwu"><img id="ntiqm4a28hmho4mnwu" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/2d2P0T3LzNZAedqEeSLc3GNtBlqD9lP31FotX9Q2OoBtyibFxbxQNS5IQmSDbgdS.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/2d2P0T3LzNZAedqEeSLc3GNtBlqD9lP31FotX9Q2OoBtyibFxbxQNS5IQmSDbgdS.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><p>A great example for surface is the battle of the Thermopylae where the Spartans faced a force of way higher mass. The result was that the surface of the Xerxes army being so small that it could never be deployed in full mass. Taking the higher training standards and heavier armor of the Spartans into account, the forces of Xerxes that faced direct engagements had to fight an enemy with a higher mass.</p><figure id="figure-3h5etvms0omho4nwiy" class=""><img id="3h5etvms0omho4nwiy" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/318HR3q47tSeK9PZE0deM1NQ2H8WBW66J3xduqh6dNuFEofwHJNefKlMFi5nWnM0.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/318HR3q47tSeK9PZE0deM1NQ2H8WBW66J3xduqh6dNuFEofwHJNefKlMFi5nWnM0.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><p><strong>Friction</strong></p><p>In warfare, things happen that can't be predicted. Bad luck, issues with comms, logistics, and weather, and the like. Clausewitz called this phenomenon friction. Friction should be considered when planning a battle. The longer the battle, the higher the friction; that’s why seeking a quick and decisive engagement with quality troops should always be favored.</p><figure id="figure-jdbfdlnnjnmho4xh48"><img id="jdbfdlnnjnmho4xh48" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1cbsesY8ulGGHVc9C7zWuYzguDIPBbHLYxCjcD2EIEBVVnGuAWKEYuTvDPiQrH5W.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1cbsesY8ulGGHVc9C7zWuYzguDIPBbHLYxCjcD2EIEBVVnGuAWKEYuTvDPiQrH5W.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><p>B.A. Friedmann had another approach to friction. His idea was that forces would create friction by producing casualties on the other side. A force should always be seeking to create the most friction in the shortest time. This is achieved by combining the factors of mass, density, and surface area most favorably.</p><p><strong>Impact</strong></p><p>Shooting a machine gun on an infantry squad in an open area is a high impact operation. Shooting the same machine gun at a tank will have little to no impact. Impact describes the efficiency of combat arms in relation to terrain and enemy. Impact is also known as 'Weapon to target match.' All the factors named above can be covered and applied, but they are useless if the chosen weapons have little to no impact. Combined arms and supporting arms warfare aim to maximize the force-to-impact ratio.</p><p><strong>Shock and Confusion</strong></p><p>Both of these are taking the human aspect of battle into account. A boldly conducted operation using overwhelming firepower, high speed, and violence of action will cause many casualties at a rapid pace and create shock. This shock reaches from the individual trooper being suppressed or literally under shock to the commander who realizes that a small but concentrated maneuver element has penetrated his lines using overwhelming force.</p><p>Confusion, on the other hand, is disrupting the enemy commanders' OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) loop. The enemy commander's ability to react relies on several electronic and personnel feedback pathways. Removing command infrastructure, changing angles of attack, and applying deception measures will contribute to shock.</p><p><strong>Does this matter to the small unit?</strong></p><p>YES! First off, small-unit leaders need to understand overarching war-fighting principles to be efficient in mission command. Furthermore, playing around with those ideas will make you know what you do in an engagement. What happens if I add all my SAWs to my support element? I create greater density with my highest-impact weapon systems! What if my assault element acts fast and boldly? I create shock! Combining all of these principles is how we induce friction, overcome the enemy, and ensure victory!&nbsp;</p>

The Science of War

<h2>Introduction to Violence of Action</h2><p>Understanding the concept of <strong>violence of action</strong> is crucial for anyone involved in tactical operations. After all, every "CQB Bro" will tell you the three principles are speed, surprise, and violence of action. But when you ask people what this actually means, they can often correctly describe surprise and speed, but they have a hard time pointing out what violence of action means.</p><p>The first ones to coin the phrase were the Special Air Service in World War 2, with "Speed,&nbsp;<strong>Aggression</strong>, Surprise". Aggression, which highlighted the use of overwhelming force and controlled aggression, &nbsp;was later changed to "Violence of Action" by Colonel Beckwith and the newly formed Delta Force. However, these were not created by large institutional bodies or by anyone with any degrees in military arts and science, but rather by a small, high-performing unit.&nbsp;</p><figure id="figure-2j268yf4vnmhjqnt27"><img id="2j268yf4vnmhjqnt27" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1eyMtuqYVFrD69kA5UQT4NbQlx8qxqqJOUPRC4ivqA9Xi8MM3VbDhonxtOeBewp6.png" alt="military tactics" title="military tactics" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="null" data-positiony="null" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1eyMtuqYVFrD69kA5UQT4NbQlx8qxqqJOUPRC4ivqA9Xi8MM3VbDhonxtOeBewp6.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h2>A Better Term?</h2><p>So is violence of action the sum of speed and surprise? Or is it its own factor? So far, it looks like it’s a bit of both, with both "Aggression" and "Violence of Action" lacking the terms "violence" and "aggression" in warfighting doctrine. But we have another term coming really close to it: “boldness”.</p><p>Boldness is described as a unit's or a leader's willingness to take action without being overcautious, or even against all odds. Examples are giving up security perimeters, not waiting for higher-up permission, and not overthinking decisions.</p><p><em>"To stand still, to hesitate, is to stagnate, lose initiative, and pass the initiative to the enemy." - MCDP 1</em><br></p><p>A bold plan usually results in speed and surprise as well as employment of overwhelming force, as fewer assets are needed for security and the like.&nbsp; MCPD 1 says,&nbsp;<em>"Boldness is the characteristic of unhesitatingly exploiting the natural uncertainty of war to pursue major results rather than marginal ones." </em>Boldness is a genuine creative force, for wherever it is superior, it will take advantage of its opponent's weakness.<br></p><p>However, just like anything, boldness requires restraint in the ever-changing landscape of war. Boldness is based on strong situation awareness: We weigh the situation, then act. In other words, boldness must be tempered with judgment lest it border on recklessness.</p><p>Boldness is superior to timidity in every instance, although boldness does not always equate to immediate aggressive action. A nervy, calculating patience that allows the enemy to commit himself irrevocably before we strike him can also be a form of boldness. By combining the correct levels of boldness and restraint, we can deliver effective, heavy blows to our enemy and exploit their weaknesses.&nbsp;</p>

Defining Violence of Action

<h2>Fitness as the Backbone of Tactical Effectiveness<br></h2><h3>Abstract</h3><p>Tactical proficiency means little without physical capacity. Whether negotiating harsh terrain, moving under load, or executing combative maneuvers, skills such as marksmanship, close-quarters battle, or small-unit tactics mean little if the operator cannot physically reach the fight or sustain performance once there. Fitness is not just about strength or endurance—it is the foundation that allows tactics to be applied under stress, fatigue, and violence. This post examines how physical fitness—not exclusively tactical acumen—underpins operational success through endurance, resilience, and cognitive clarity in high-stakes environments.</p><h3>The Physical Prerequisite to Tactical Skill<br></h3><p>Operational success begins long before the objective is reached. Long-distance movements under load fatigue the operator before engagement even begins, rendering tactical training moot if one cannot arrive fit enough to fight. According to a 2025 meta-analysis on military training and physical readiness, prolonged exertion was shown to significantly degrade muscular endurance and explosive capacity—two abilities essential for close-quarters combat tasks (<a data-mce-href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39946048/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39946048/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">PubMed, 2025</a>).</p><h3>Fitness as a Predictor of Battlefield Readiness<br></h3><p>A study on the Warrior Task Simulation Test (WTST)—which involved running, casualty drags, obstacle negotiation, and other tasks—found that aerobic and anaerobic capacity, muscular endurance, and body composition together explained more than 50% of the performance variability in battlefield tasks (<a data-mce-href="https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Fulltext/2018/09000/Physical_Fitness_Predictors_of_a_Warrior_Task.18.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Fulltext/2018/09000/Physical_Fitness_Predictors_of_a_Warrior_Task.18.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal of Strength &amp; Conditioning Research, 2018</a>). In other words, fitness markers directly predicted tactical effectiveness. Without these qualities, skill execution degraded rapidly.</p><h3>Fitness Standards Reflect Combat Demands<br></h3><p>The U.S. Army recognized this correlation when it replaced the Army Physical Fitness Test with the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) in 2022. The ACFT measures deadlifts, sprints, loaded carries, and power throws—events designed to reflect combat-relevant tasks such as lifting equipment, sprinting to cover, or dragging a casualty (<a data-mce-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Combat_Fitness_Test?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Combat_Fitness_Test?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Army Combat Fitness Test Doctrine, 2022</a>). Furthermore, research indicates that structured, expert-led physical training programs yield significantly higher improvements on ACFT events compared to conventional unit-led training (<a data-mce-href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36582397/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36582397/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">PubMed, 2023</a>).</p><h3>Load Marching and Tactical Mobility<br></h3><p>Getting to the fight is often the most challenging part. A 2023 study of ROTC cadets found that anaerobic capacity was one of the strongest predictors of load-march performance, with sprint-drag-carry metrics closely tied to weighted march times. Trunk and upper-body strength were also essential for carrying loads across long distances (<a data-mce-href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10045466/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10045466/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">PubMed Central, 2023</a>). Without this foundation, operators may arrive at the objective too exhausted to fight effectively.</p><h3>Injury Prevention Through Fitness<br></h3><p>Fitness is not just about output—it is also about protection. According to an extensive review of Army training programs, soldiers with the lowest aerobic fitness were 1.4 to 2.8 times more likely to sustain injuries during training (<a data-mce-href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235938/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235938/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Institute of Medicine Committee on Military Nutrition Research, 2001</a>). Another study confirmed that slow run times strongly correlated with higher injury rates regardless of gender (<a data-mce-href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28993131/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28993131/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">PubMed, 2013</a>). In short, poor fitness not only degrades tactical effectiveness but also increases the risk of being sidelined before a mission begins.</p><h3>Integrated Training Outperforms Traditional Methods<br></h3><p>Recent research has demonstrated that modern integrated training methods outperform traditional physical training programs. An 8-week Integrated Neuromuscular Training (INT) protocol significantly improved sprinting, jumping, agility, and balance in military personnel compared to conventional PT (<a data-mce-href="https://bmcsportsscimedrehabil.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13102-025-01172-9?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://bmcsportsscimedrehabil.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13102-025-01172-9?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BMC Sports Science, Medicine &amp; Rehabilitation, 2025</a>). High-intensity interval training (HIIT), which mirrors the intermittent bursts of combat, has also been found to effectively build both aerobic and anaerobic capacity—making it a valuable approach for tactical readiness (<a data-mce-href="https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2013/09000/mechanical%2C_physical%2C_and_physiological_analysis.8.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2013/09000/mechanical%2C_physical%2C_and_physiological_analysis.8.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal of Strength &amp; Conditioning Research, 2013</a>).</p><h3>Fitness Enhances Cognitive Function Under Stress<br></h3><p>The benefits of fitness extend beyond physical resilience. Aerobic exercise has been shown to enhance executive function, decision-making, memory, and emotional regulation (<a data-mce-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurobiological_effects_of_physical_exercise?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurobiological_effects_of_physical_exercise?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Neurobiological Effects of Exercise, 2008</a>). For the operator, this translates into sharper tactical awareness and faster decision cycles under extreme stress—capabilities just as vital as physical strength.</p><h3>Conclusion<br></h3><p>Tactical success is inseparable from physical readiness.<br>Aerobic and anaerobic fitness, muscular endurance, agility, and body composition directly predict combat performance.<br>Fitness protects against injury, sharpens cognition, and ensures operators arrive at the fight ready to execute their tasks.<br>Integrated, modern training methods better prepare personnel for the demands of modern warfare.<br>Bottom line: Tactical skill without fitness is wasted potential. True combat effectiveness requires both.</p>

The Correlation Between Fitness and Tactical Success

Seraph Eustace Group

Seraph Eustace Group is a premier tactical training and consulting organization committed to forging elite-level proficiency in military, law enforcement, and security professionals. Founded by seasoned combat operators, the group brings together deep operational experience, modern tactics, and a relentless drive for excellence.

Inspired by the warrior ethos and grounded in discipline, Seraph Eustace Group offers dynamic, real-world training in CQB, mission planning, small unit tactics, and leadership development. Our curriculum is battle-tested, principle-driven, and designed to elevate performance under pressure—whether on the battlefield, in urban environments, or during high-risk operations.

Like GBRS, Achilles Tactical, and Hades Tactical, we don’t just teach tactics—we shape mindsets. Our training pushes beyond mechanics to instill clarity, aggression, and purpose in every action. At Seraph Eustace Group, we believe warriors aren’t born—they’re forged.