SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR

SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR ^ | 1910 | Translated by LIONEL GILES

[Alpha One]

SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR

THE OLDEST MILITARY TREATISE IN THE WORLD

Translated from the Chinese with Introduction and Critical Notes

BY LIONEL GILES, M.A.

Assistant in the Department of Oriental Printed Books and MSS. in the British Museum
First Published in 1910

---

To my brother Captain Valentine Giles, R.G. in the hope that a work 2400 years old may yet contain lessons worth consideration by the soldier of today this translation is affectionately dedicated.

This publication is based on an Etext version provided by the Project Gutenberg. Dr. Giles's commentaries are inluded for the benefit of those who are not familiar with the Ancient Chinese History (500 BC).

Etext Annotations	Preface to the Project Gutenburg Etext Introduction The Text of Sun Tzu Appreciations of Sun Tzu Bibliography Footnotes
Art of War	Chapter I. Laying Plans Chapter II. Waging War Chapter III. ATTACK BY STRATAGEM Chapter IV. TACTICAL DISPOSITIONS Chapter V. ENERGY Chapter VI. WEAK POINTS AND STRONG Chapter VII. MANEUVERING Chapter VIII. VARIATION IN TACTICS Chapter IX. THE ARMY ON THE MARCH Chapter X. TERRAIN Chapter XI. THE NINE SITUATIONS Chapter XII. THE ATTACK BY FIRE Chapter XIII. THE USE OF SPIES

Brought to you by Korea WebWeekly

[Squantos]

Spokeshave ....Thanks for the information. I've been subjected to everything from Sun Tzu ,Maslow to Demming and now Six Sigma. Guess I'll have to surf some of the web sites with the Lanchester Strategy .

Stay Safe and again.....Thanks.

[Travis McGee]

Actually I just meant the snake pic at #12!

[Squantos]

LOL ....I think I've seen her act in Bangkok on Patapong Road at "Superstars".....!?!?!?!?

Stay Safe !

[Squantos]

Wardaddy will know maybe :o).........Stay Safe !

[Travis McGee]

I never saw it done through those orifices...

[Jeff Head]

"All warfare is deception." Sun Tzu

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[Poohbah]

What he's really referring to are Lanchester's equations. Basically, Lanchester observed that as ranged fires replaced close combat as the primary casualty generator, the nature of warfare changed, and gave a great deal more emphasis on numeric superiority.

For example, in a battle between 1000 men on side A and 750 men on side B in the era of close combat (sword and shield), you'd wind up with 250 men on Side A and 0 on Side B after an engagement to the finish. That's a 75% loss rate for the superior force.

With ranged fire, you have a more complex situation. The following example ignores terrain and morale for the purposes of illustrating the basic principle.

Suppose that Side A has 1,000 soldiers engaged, against 750 for Side B. Casualty rates are identical: 10% per volley of fire (1000 soldiers firing = 100 hits). Volleys are assumed to occur simultaneously.

We come up with the following table:

Time Increment	Side A Force	Side B Force	Ratio A:B
0	1,000	750	1.33
1	925	650	1.42
2	860	558	1.54
3	804	472	1.70
4	757	392	1.93
5	718	316	2.27
6	686	244	2.81
7	662	175	3.78
8	644	109	5.91
9	633	45	14.07
10	628	0	Infinite

As you can see, the side with superior numbers gains an ever-widening level of superiority over the enemy, taking less than 40% losses in exchange for annihilating the enemy.

[Squantos]

Thanks Pooh for taking the time to put that togeather for me. I think some of Lancasters books I have located (aside from this theory) look interesting also.

Stay Safe !

[ScholarWarrior]

FYI Sun Tzu is a primary text at the Army War College and West Point.

[Poohbah]

As it should be...

[Poohbah]

BTW, remember that your mileage may vary, based on terrain, tactics, training, morale, and luck.

[LibKill]

Dang! You're really good at this stuff.

[Poohbah]

Tables are a PITA to do properly...

[Poohbah]

As Sun Tzu would say about HTML Tables: "Preview many times, Post once."

[LibKill]

Well yeah, but I meant the military theory. I do see you are good at HTML as well.

[Centurion2000]

Bump

[Poohbah]

I got into it while wargaming. Lanchester's good for a basic understanding of the process. In actuality, somewhere around Round 2 or Round 3, Side B would realize that they were getting creamed and would try to flee. Also, most engagements don't begin with large numbers of guys wandering up to each other and blazing away--patrols tend to bump into enemy patrols or positions, and everyone would start shooting at each other while the commanders tried to figure out what the heck was going on.

[LibKill]

Also, most engagements don't begin with large numbers of guys wandering up to each other and blazing away--patrols tend to bump into enemy patrols or positions, and everyone would start shooting at each other while the commanders tried to figure out what the heck was going on.

If memory serves, that's what happened at Gettysburg.

[Steel Wolf]

Sun Zi was perhap's the earliest proponent of having a strong intelligence capability.

Opposing forces may face each other for years, striving for the victory which may be decided in a single day. This being so, to remain in ignorance of the enemy's condition simply because one grudges the outlay of a hundred ounces of silver (to hire spies) is the height of stupidity.

One who acts thus is no leader of men, no present help to his cause, no master of victory. Thus, what enables the wise commander to strike and conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is foreknowledge

All calculations in military planning rest on having numbers to work with. Without accurate and broad intelligence on your enemies, you cannot expect to devise effective strategies on how to deal with him. What seems like common sense now was revolutionary then, and took centuries to catch on elsewhere.