When do you choose to finish it? When do you choose to pick at them? Several historical examples of this situation are to my mind ambiguous.
Operation Dynamo at Dunkirk seemed to be what allowed the UK to fight on. Without it there may not have been a western beachhead. Hitler would have been able to send all his forces at Russia.
Churchill's comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhb3Dvkauno (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhb3Dvkauno)
In the [size=78%]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula_Campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula_Campaign)[/size] McClellan refused to attack. He dug in to siege positions.
In the Art of War Sun Tsu describes burning his ships after landing in enemy territory to motivate his men. He also says always give an enemy a narrow way out to avoid the casualties inflicted by the cornered badger. Presumably he will whittle them down over several retreating battles.
So clearly the cornered force is a critical juncture of the war. The choice to attack is a branching tree that may lead to victory or defeat overall whatever is chosen. When is it worth it to attack? When is the better decision to allow a fighting retreat?
This is an interesting one, and deserves some thought, especially as my dad fought at, and was evacuated from Dunkirk.
However, a point here with regards to 'Little mac'. He dug in because of over-caution, and was convinced that the Confederate army was much larger than it in fact was, in part because he was badly served by his inteligence advisor, Pinkerton. At least, that's the situation as I understand it.
Referring to 'Little Mac' - I believe he was an observor during the Crimean War (I can't remember which side right now) and witnessed the Battle of Balaclava and the huge price the British and French paid in storming the dug in Russians. I'm not saying that was THE whole reason for his not attacking what we now know as the understrength Confederates. It may have been in the back of his mind though - along with other reasons.
I think the quality of intelligence is the biggest variable that has to be considered when looking at questions like that. If your enemy is cut off from his supplies and his base of operations, a grinding war of attrition will exhaust him of ammo and medical supplies in short order. BUT, seldom can your intelligence tell you just how cornered or weak an opponent is.
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on June 19, 2012, 11:24:15 PM
I think the quality of intelligence is the biggest variable that has to be considered when looking at questions like that. If your enemy is cut off from his supplies and his base of operations, a grinding war of attrition will exhaust him of ammo and medical supplies in short order. BUT, seldom can your intelligence tell you just how cornered or weak an opponent is.
Ah yes...
intelligence failures and maneuver successes.