Talk:Hammer and anvil

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Question

Can someone clarify which unit is the "hammer" and which is the "anvil"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.179.241.200 (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The infantry or pinning force is the anvil and the cavalry or maneuvering force is the hammer. 72.200.151.15 (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

There is an unpleasantly conversational tone here: "You wouldn't just let your cavalry.." User:Pedant 98.148.182.33 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I tried to re-write that part to be more neutral.

I still find the part about the "hopping" technique to be slightly confusing. I don't understand how it's significantly different from a normal flanking maneuver. Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is proposed that this article be deleted

Despite under the category of military tactics, the etymology is doubtful and appears to be a British phrase which is not used in this context.

This article appears to have most usage of this phrase online, mostly about an online game, and refer back to this wiki article. The history and origin indicates an intent of the article to be a neologism to advertise a youtuber.

The sole source does not verify the phrase and refers instead to that the battles have occured, rather than a name of the military tactic used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octotable (talk • contribs) 10:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have found several sources for this, including the source cited, which, in contradiction to what you wrote, does verify the phrase at the top of the page indicated. Other sources include ISBN 9781119062356 page 95, ISBN 9780060380366 page 223, ISBN 9780870682667 page 136, ISBN 9780395722237 page 116, ISBN 9780811741477 page 96 and ISBN 9780812994650 page 237, covering conflicts from antiquity to the Vietnam War. I don't have time to incorporate content from them at the moment, but the topic is clearly notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article is shaping up but sections need to conform to the opening paragraph definition and use credible references

Example is the section battle of Santa Cruz island a naval clash between US and Japan. Unable to see where the hammer and anvil is.

What was the AMerican anvil?
Or Japanese?
ANd what Hammer for the Japanese?
Or Americans?
How?
Where?

A bit confusing. Needs more precision. Unsourced section moved here for further discussion.

Also needs credible references not links to just a web page. There are entire books on this battle. Few mention any hammer and anvil in accordance with the opening definition. An "Anvil" force is not a light diversionary or holding force that retreats to lure an opponent forward or merely a feint, but is a strong force that can cause substantial damage to an opponent if it breaks free. The "Hammer" force is not a light raiding type but strong enough to strike a decisive blow to win a battle, working with the anvil force. The classic example is the breakout from Normandy- the British "anvil" at the city of Caen sucking in the bulk of the German armor, and the American "hammer" on the right, Bradley's First Army to be later joined by the free-running Patton. All this is well documented in such books as "Caen: Anvil of Victory" and the bios of Field Marshal Montgomery, both cited in article. Of course not every example is as elaborate as this, and there are lighter variants, but the general elements above are what make up "hammer and anvil" tactics. Battles that describe mere feints or raids or simple flank attacks without a strong "pin-down" element, don't really make the cut. Also the commander must have planned for these tactics and arranged his formations to make it happen, not just a melee type battle. Pompey massed his cavalry on the left for the decisive stroke, not a simple melee engagement. Other sections are on track with opening definition.

Battle of Santa Cruz 1942 -needs to be cleaned up and shown to meet definition.

During the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands the Japanese empire hammer? cornered USS Enterprise (CV-6) and USS Hornet (CV-8) and launched 10 torpedoes at both ships. Enterprise dodged all the torpedoes, but a bomb hit her boilers and the steering room causing her to spin in circles. Hornet was an anvi?l not so lucky 10 Kates cornered the vessel and two of them scored a direct hit crippling the vessel. If that were not enough a damaged Val did a kamakazi run and smashed into the port side near the bow. Hornet was in flames but would not go down, so Admiral Bull Halsey ordered Hornet scuttled. After several failed attempts by the Americans the Japanese succeeded in scuttling Hornet with 4 Long Lance Torpedoes launched from the Makigumo and the Akigumo.^[1]

Serbchingo (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Battle of Santa Cruz Islands". public2.nhhcaws.local. Retrieved 2020-09-07.

What is this citation?

"Caesar, BC III 92,1. " --138.163.0.39 (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Issus?

The subsection on the battle of Issus appears to be wrongly titled. It doesn't include any discussion on said battle or how the tactic was involved in it. --Severian79 (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Battle of Santa Cruz Islands". public2.nhhcaws.local. Retrieved 2020-09-07.

[1]