Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2014 October 2

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 2

Opposite of One-Sided Battle?

Hi everybody,

what I'm looking for is a trope / stereotype / device / cliché / whatever describing a "two-sided" battle, in the sense that both sides keep losing units. And because I am looking for the kind of battle in fiction, I put it on RD/Entertainment. It's extremely improbable in real battles; those sea battles where groups of ships whittled each other down to 1 vs. 1 were usually different: each group consisted of one ironclad and several wooden ships, and the ironclads survived due to their superior hulls. That kind of battle would count as two one-sided battles of ironclad vs. wooden ships.

The Wikipedians who are regular Tropers will probably know the concept of a "curb-stomp battle", where one side doesn't achieve anything at all and suffers heavy or even total losses, while the other side hardly suffers any losses.

I'm looking for the opposite. The literal opposite would be another one-sided battle, where the other side wins, duh!

The first chapters of The Apocalypse Troll would be a good example; it starts with two opposing task forces, each with at least three capital ships, and they whittle each other down to one ship each. Then, one ship rams the enemy, and only fighters and small craft remain. Finally, they kill each other, and it's one fighter gone winchester vs. one fighter pilot with a sidearm.

One Bolo (tank) story would be another example; I don't remember its name, but basically, Mankind vs. Melconians (sp?) virtually annihilate each other; only one settlement and a damaged Bolo vs. a two-ship colonizing detachment remain.

Is there a name for that kind of battle, where (1) the losses of both sides are close to total, but (2) not exactly total? - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 08:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that Pendulum War doesn't fit: that's when the battle looks one-sided, until The Cavalry Arrives^TM — and then, it continues as one-sided as it started, but for the other side. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 09:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Pyrrhic victory is what you're after - "a victory with such a devastating cost that it is tantamount to defeat". -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 08:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a perfect fit either. In Troll, for example, any landing craft could have eradicated the human species via bioweapon, so the primary objective was to nuke all capital ships and landing craft, and that was achieved; only an enemy fighter survived. (The Troll had a Plan B, but that was only discovered later)

For the Bolo example (I found it, the final story of BOLO!), pyrrhic victory fits better, but it's still something different: "Pyrrhic" means you win the war but you lose more than you win (so this can apply even to asymmetric warfare scenarios where the winner doesn't even have to lose many units), while the trope I'm looking for is "both sides lose most of their forces", often played up to ridiculous extremes. It's economic (Pyrrhic) vs. military (Two-sided) aspect.

If I had to pick a name, I'd call it a "Balance-scale battle", because it doesn't swing like a pendulum. More often than not, it's played so damn straight that each time one side kills a significant enemy unit, it'll lose one of its units in the next five paragraphs. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 09:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Attrition warfare, perhaps? Closer, but still not quite. Basically, both sides keep tossing folks into the battle until one side runs out of folks. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"Inconclusive battle" gets quite a few Google results and we ourselves have Category:Inconclusive battles of the American Civil War. Alansplodge (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "meat grinder battle"? See e.g. Operation_Mars. Might be helpful terminology for the search anyway. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• War of attrition sounds right, or the far more simple "stalemate". A "war of attrition", though, can sometimes refer to a battle where both sides have forces depleted at a more-or-less consistent rate (having started on generally equal footing to begin with) but with one side having a "last man standing". But it mostly describes what OP seems to be talking about - two sides whacking away without a winner. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: I would have linked "War of attrition" (above) –but that links to a specific war between Israel and Egypt from 1967 to 1970; thus I linked Attrition warfare instead.  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This is actually a fairly common situation in real warfare, resulting from both sides having superior defenses for their weapons than offences able to take out their enemy's weapons. The result is that both sides can damage one another, but neither can dislodge the other from their positions. In medieval warfare, castles could provide that defensive advantage, while in WW1 trenches did. In both cases it took new technology to change the situation. Nuclear war seems likely to be another example, where nukes on subs or in hardened bunkers are relatively safe, so both sides can just keep pounding each other until they run out of nukes.

As far as movies, try Hamburger Hill (based on a real battle of attrition on a seemingly insignificant hill in the Korean War), the original Star Trek series (at least 4 episodes, one with the half-white/half-black races who destroyed each other except for one survivor from each, the episode with a man from this universe fighting the man in the anti-universe for all eternity, the show where two opposing planets fought a perpetual war with each other in computer simulations, but "registered" the deaths by vaporizing their own citizens who were killed, and the The Doomsday Machine, where all that remained of two warring factions was an automated planet killer). In WarGames the computer fortunately learned it's lesson before launching nukes that "The only way to win the game is not to play". StuRat (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of inconclusive battles. Thanks everybody.

I'll have to sample that list, to see how high the losses were in most of these. In fiction, they are often close to total (Troll: > 99%, BOLO!: >99.9%, On Basilisk Station: >50%, The Honor of the Queen: >80% (The Cavalry Arrives^TM just before the final clash) ), and it would be quite strange if real battles went on like that. In reality, when one side starts losing, it will more often than not keep losing the battle. With the notable exception of nukes, where it is possible for a very small crew to kill thousands or even millions.

The cliché looks decidedly Weberesque. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 07:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hell, the whole BOLO! book is this!

Weber OWNS that trope. If you know The Armageddon Inheritance, near the middle, the first Human-Achuultani battle is a textbook Balance-scale battle. Until, as you put it, The Cavalry Arrives^TM. There is Honor Among Enemies, where two capital ships annihilate each other, after a sequence of curb-stomp victories. If it's a 1-on-1 or 1-on-X action, it's a coin flip if curb-stomp or this trope ensues. If it's a large fleet encounter, expect a curb-stomp, often delivered via Manticoran Missile Massacre.

217.255.167.212 (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

PROTIP: Did you know that in some parts of the internets, "1-on-1 action" does not mean what you think it means?

Oops, how could I forget Enemies? Thanks for adding it. It is an example which works like nukes: both fire, and then, both are hit. That's actually one of the most plausible, and most pyrrhic, instances I know.

Two more popular instances: Star Trek: First Contact (1-on-X example) and Nemesis (1-on-1 example).

I could correct the losses in Troll to >99.9% (from two multi-million-ton task forces to one fighter each (although it's more a LAC than a fighter as we know it) and that's only a fifth of the book) as well. Maybe it's a troll fic after all... - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 05:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Another: What is the name of ____ movie, question

Foreign film. I think Norwegian. I just remember that they're farm workers and every day they're fed herring and then everyone is very disappointed when Christmas comes round; everyone is expecting some fine meal and what's for dinner? Yes, herring again! Old movie, I would say pre-1970.--71.167.166.18 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh well. I guess no one knows.--71.167.166.18 (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I tried, but the closest that I could find was Our Vines Have Tender Grapes & Pelle the Conqueror -quite a few keyword hits, but not quite enough. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No answer but a suggestion: why don't you try the Norwegian Reference Desk. I'm sure you can leave your query in English. Contact Basemetal here 21:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)