Editing Military tactics (section)

==Development over time==
The development of tactics has involved a shifting balance between the four tactical functions since ancient times, and changes in firepower and mobility have been fundamental to these changes. Various models have been proposed to explain the interaction between the tactical functions and the dominance of individual fighting arms during different periods. [[J. F. C. Fuller]] proposed three "tactical cycles" in each of the classical and Christian eras. For the latter epoch, he proposed a "shock" cycle between 650 and 1450, a "shock and projectile" cycle 1450–1850, and a "projectile" cycle from 1850, with respect to the Western and North American warfare.{{Sfn|Holmes et al.|2001|p="Introduction"}} During World War II, [[Tom Wintringham]] proposed six chronological periods, which alternate the dominance between unarmoured and armoured forces and highlight tactical trends in each period.{{sfn|Holmes et al.|2001|pp=893–894}}

{|class="wikitable"
|+Development of tactics{{sfn|Holmes et al.|2001|p=894}}
|-
! scope="col" | Period
! scope="col" | Dominant fighting arm
! scope="col" | Tactical trends
|-
| '''First unarmoured period'''<br>(to the [[Battle of Plataea]] (479{{nbsp}}BC)) || '''None''' – both infantry and cavalry have relatively low kinetic power, chariots provide a measure of shock action ||Egyptian, Persian and Greek armies become better organised and equipped 
|-
| '''First armoured period'''<br>(to the [[Battle of Adrianople]] (378) || '''Infantry''' – the [[phalanx]] and [[Roman legion]], experimentation with elephants for shock action only a limited success || Armies and casualties increase significantly, introduction of siege and field artillery by the Romans 
|-
| '''Second unarmoured period'''<br>(to [[Charlemagne]]'s victory at [[Siege of Pavia (773–74)|Pavia]] (774)) || '''Light cavalry''' – horse archers and shock action defeat infantry || Mobility dominates until checked by armoured cavalry
|-
| '''Second armoured period'''<br>(to the battles of [[Battle of Morgarten|Morgarten]] (1315), [[Battle of Crécy|Crécy]] (1346) and [[Battle of Ravenna (1512)]]) ||'''Heavy cavalry''' – facilitated by the introduction of the [[stirrup]] and armour || Expense limits numbers of armoured cavalry, Swiss infantry armed with [[halberd]]s and English longbowmen rebalance the scales  
|-
| '''Third unarmoured period'''<br>(to the [[Battle of Cambrai (1917)|Battle of Cambrai]] (1917) ||'''Infantry''' – with steadily increasing firepower || [[Combined arms]], with artillery firepower becoming predominant
|-
| '''Third armoured period'''<br>(to the present) || '''Armoured forces''' restore mobility || Armoured combined arms countered by military aircraft and infantry [[Anti-tank warfare|anti-armour]] weapons
|-
|}

Massed volley fire by archers brought infantry firepower to the fore in Japanese warfare in the second half of the 13th century, preceding the rise of the English longbowman.{{sfn|Haskew et al.|2008|p=17}} The mobility and shock action of the [[Oirats|Oirat]] [[Mongol Empire|Mongol]] army at the [[Battle of Tumu]] in 1449 demonstrated that cavalry could still defeat a large infantry force.{{sfn|Haskew et al.|2008|pp=12–17}} In both the European and Oriental traditions of warfare, the advent of gunpowder during the late [[Medieval warfare|Medieval]] and Early Modern periods created a relentless shift to infantry firepower becoming "a decisive, if not dominant" arm on the battlefield,{{sfn|Haskew et al.|2008|pp=7–8}} exemplified by the significant impact of massed [[arquebus]]iers at the [[Battle of Nagashino]] in 1575.{{sfn|Haskew et al.|2008|pp=54–62}}