Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line?

On 2 fev, 18:56, "HR" <H....TakeThisOut@horizon.net> wrote:

>
> Tactical = squads
> Operational = bn/regts or div
> Strategic = Corps or bigger
>

I agree Pat. The Brazilian doctrine is similar than US.

There aren't a clear equivalence between the levels (tactical,
operational, strategical) to echelons (battalion, brigade, division,
etc). But normally, Divisions are at tactical level.
 >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? 

>> I've noticed that quite a lot of people (often not wargame afficionados)
>> use "strategy" to mean "a game where you need to think". Exactly what
>> you need to think about doesn't matter, as long as the game isn't decided
>> most by luck, dexterity, clicking really fast or knowing useless trivia.
>
> Don't know about that last one. There's plenty of strategy games (in
> your sense of the word) that rely on gamers knowing a lot of arcane,
> game related stuff. Dominions 3 for example.

Which can vary from game to game and may not be intuitive. For example,
it's obvious to any historical game player that "troops need supplies" but
the simulated circumstances under which troops start being penalised for
being "out of supply" can vary from game system to game system. Playing
TOAW well required a good understanding of its abstact supply system which
was certainly "different" from that found in many other games.

Andy
 >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? 

Andy Brown <andybrn.TakeThisOut@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>> I've noticed that quite a lot of people (often not wargame afficionados)
>>> use "strategy" to mean "a game where you need to think". Exactly what
>>> you need to think about doesn't matter, as long as the game isn't decided
>>> most by luck, dexterity, clicking really fast or knowing useless trivia.
>>
>> Don't know about that last one. There's plenty of strategy games (in
>> your sense of the word) that rely on gamers knowing a lot of arcane,
>> game related stuff. Dominions 3 for example.
>
> Which can vary from game to game and may not be intuitive. For example,
> it's obvious to any historical game player that "troops need supplies" but
> the simulated circumstances under which troops start being penalised for
> being "out of supply" can vary from game system to game system. Playing
> TOAW well required a good understanding of its abstact supply system which
> was certainly "different" from that found in many other games.

I don't really count knowing the (sometimes obscure or overly complex)
rules of the game itself as useless trivia. It's useless trivia outside
the game. I was referring to games like Trivial Pursuit and the like.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
 >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? 

> And I think that's exactly what it is: operational strategy. I think
> Guderian's Blitzkrieg also counts as operational strategy, so I don't
> think it's just the Russians that had this concept, although they may
> have been the first to give it a different name.
>

There is actually quite a bit of writing on this topic. Matt Cooper
("The German Army") says the Germans lost Russia because they ignored
Guderian's insistance that they should use panzer drives to reach
Moscow to the exclusion of all else. Shimon Naveh ("In Pursuit of
Military Excellence") says that blitzkrieg lacked any operational
logic at all, and rather was just penetration for its own sake. Bryan
Fugate ("Operation Barbarossa") says the russians were thinking in
detail about how to match tactics to strategy before the Germans were
even sure they were ever going to invade.

I think this is all much ado about nothing. The Russians had nearly
twice as many divisions as Germany to start with and were able to
mobilize 35 million people (none of which the rest of the world
knew). Just about any tactics will work with those kinds of numbers.
That having been said, the Russians were the first to use the term
"Operational Maneuver" and distinguish planning at this level from
tactics or strategy.

> I also remind me that even in the ancient greek world, "logistic" was an
> important aspect of war campaigns. So I'm not sure "operational" level
> suddenly appears in the WW2, ex nihilo.

I absolutely agree that the operational level of war didn't just
appear in WWII. I am just saying that before WWII, people didn't
think about it as distinct from strategy or tactics. In fact, if you
read Clausewitz ("On War") and Jomini ("The Art of War") when they
talk about strategy, it sounds a lot like what we now call the
operational level of war. What we now call strategy all happened in
the king's head back in their day.


PAT PROCTOR
President, ProSIM Company
http://www.prosimco.com/writing
 >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? 

pproctor69 RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:
>> Another nice distinction. Not quite congruent with the US Army
>> definitions that Pat posted... but I would expect Napoleon to agree
>> with the terms as you used them.
>
> That's an interesting observation...
>
> The operational level of war was not really even a concept until World
> War II, and then only with the Russians (as someone pointed out
> earlier). Operational art and the operational level of war really
> only came of age in the US military in the 1980s.
>
> When you read all of the commentary on the Napoleonic Wars written
> immediately after the wars (especially Jomini's "The Art of War" and
> Clausewitz' "On War") they only describe the tactical and strategic
> levels of war. Tactical was everything that happened in a single
> battle, on a single battlefield, between two opposing forces.
> Strategic was everything that happened outside of this realm. A lot
> of what was called "strategic" in these days is now thought of as
> "operational."

And I think that's exactly what it is: operational strategy. I think
Guderian's Blitzkrieg also counts as operational strategy, so I don't
think it's just the Russians that had this concept, although they may
have been the first to give it a different name.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
 >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? 

pproctor69.DeleteThis@yahoo.com wrote :

> The operational level of war was not really even a concept until World
> War II, and then only with the Russians (as someone pointed out
> earlier).

As describes by many of you, it sounds like "logisitic" is strongly
linked to "operational" level. Actually, I'm not sure to clearly state
the difference between the two.

I also remind me that even in the ancient greek world, "logistic" was an
important aspect of war campaigns. So I'm not sure "operational" level
suddenly appears in the WW2, ex nihilo.

--
Hugo
 >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? 

BP wrote:
> I've been wondering about the line here for awhile, but today I saw a
> post in the strategic group requesting a "squad-based, strategic" game
> and that seemed to me a contradiction...
>
> What would y'all say are the dividing lines between tactical games and
> strategic games? Is it just scale and unit size, or is there something
> more?
>
> And then how about operational, just to muddy things up a bit more?
>
> BP
>
How about this?

If the consequence of doing the wrong thing is a spear, arrow, blade, or
bullet through the cranium, it's tactical.

If the consequence of doing the wrong thing is being sacrificed, court
marshaled, fired, or demoted, it's strategic.

--
Stupot http://insignity.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? 

> Here's my theory of the Eastern Front.  It's like if you asked me to
> knock our Lennox Lewis.  I'd have one chance; pick up a heavy object,
> sneak up behind him, and clobber him so hard that he's unable to get up
> again.  But if the second round of our bout starts with Lewis standing
> there rubbing a knot on his head, and me waving a folding chair, the
> remainder of the contest is kinda preordained.  Yeah, I might manage one
> or two more diminishing rushes with my chair ... but if the first one
> didn't work, when I had all the advantages...
>
> Klonk.  Down I go.  Sooner or later.
>
> --
> Giftzwerg

That is an Eastern Front assesment with 20/20 hindsight though: you
*know* that the Soviets are going to keep fighting, they have a vast
heavy industrial base and population in the remote hinterlands and in
a few months the American colossus is going to join the fight.

From the German point of view before June 41 just as valid an
assesment would be that: they were facing a weak and battered UK which
was unable to actually invade the continent at that point. So why not
turn your now near-undivided attention on a country which you knocked
out in the previous world war - when you were fighting on a solid
French front at the same time?
Once the USSR is out, Germany would easily be able to see off the
mobilised British Empire - and USA if necessary.

A better boxing metaphore would be for you to take on Roberto Duran: a
fairly small and compact Mexican who does not seem too dangerous.
And only after your first punch fails to take him down and he
counterpunches do you realise you might have made a slight mistake in
your assesment.....

Regards,

-von Schmidt
 >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? 

On 6 feb, 15:29, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg....DeleteThis@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Fairly small?" On what measuring stick was Soviet Russia "smaller"
> than Germany? I mean, most of the ones I can think of would find Russia
> "substantially bigger."

There is the argument that the Russian army in 1941 was the smallest /
worst it would be for the next 10 years - no matter what the Germans
did. It was just recovering from the officer purge, new equipment was
coming online. So, if the Germans ever wanted to attack Russia it
would be better to do so in 1941 than later. Hit them when they're the
weakest etc.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? 

pproctor69 RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> And I think that's exactly what it is: operational strategy. I think
>> Guderian's Blitzkrieg also counts as operational strategy, so I don't
>> think it's just the Russians that had this concept, although they may
>> have been the first to give it a different name.
>
> There is actually quite a bit of writing on this topic. Matt Cooper
> ("The German Army") says the Germans lost Russia because they ignored
> Guderian's insistance that they should use panzer drives to reach
> Moscow to the exclusion of all else. Shimon Naveh ("In Pursuit of
> Military Excellence") says that blitzkrieg lacked any operational
> logic at all, and rather was just penetration for its own sake. Bryan
> Fugate ("Operation Barbarossa") says the russians were thinking in
> detail about how to match tactics to strategy before the Germans were
> even sure they were ever going to invade.
>
> I think this is all much ado about nothing. The Russians had nearly
> twice as many divisions as Germany to start with and were able to
> mobilize 35 million people (none of which the rest of the world
> knew). Just about any tactics will work with those kinds of numbers.

I once read an interesting article about infantry tactics in WW2 (I
think the article was related to Squad Leader), which said that Russian
infantry tactics were to attack in two waves, the first of which
had guns, and the second wave would pick up the guns from fallen
soldiers from the first wave. That might be efficient from a logistical
point of view, but doesn't exactly count sophisticated compared to
German infantry tactics.

> That having been said, the Russians were the first to use the term
> "Operational Maneuver" and distinguish planning at this level from
> tactics or strategy.

"Operational Maneuver" still sounds to me like good old fashioned
strategy, as opposed to "Grand Strategy", which is a lot more closely
related to diplomacy and politics.

>> I also remind me that even in the ancient greek world, "logistic" was an
>> important aspect of war campaigns. So I'm not sure "operational" level
>> suddenly appears in the WW2, ex nihilo.
>
> I absolutely agree that the operational level of war didn't just
> appear in WWII. I am just saying that before WWII, people didn't
> think about it as distinct from strategy or tactics. In fact, if you
> read Clausewitz ("On War") and Jomini ("The Art of War") when they
> talk about strategy, it sounds a lot like what we now call the
> operational level of war.

Exactly.

> What we now call strategy all happened in
> the king's head back in their day.

Like diplomacy and politics, I suppose.

I have to admit my notion of "Grand Strategy" comes mostly from the
Avalon Hill game _Empires in Arms_, which for a large part revolves
around whether Napoleon should invade Italy, Prussia, or forge a
naval alliance and invade England, and whether the other major powers
should ally against Napoleon, with him, or try to stay out of it.
This is strategy on a grand scale, and diplomacy is just as important
a tool at that level as armies and generals are. It's not the
strategy of generals, but indeed the strategy of kings.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
 >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? 

On 6 feb, 17:42, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg... DeleteThis @NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:

> "They're small enough to take out now" is a different argument from
> "they're only going to get bigger," and the one can't really suggest the
> other.

Strangely enough that's exactly the argument why Nato vs. Warsaw Pact
games are mostly set in the mid to late eighties. That was the most
optimum moment from the Soviet's pov - any later and they'd face a
stronger Nato while they themselves where getting weaker on the
economic and technological fronts.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? 

In article <82031327-1f12-4f27-9ada-
83cbcaac4afb.DeleteThis@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, eddysterckx.DeleteThis@hotmail.com
says...

> > "Fairly small?" On what measuring stick was Soviet Russia "smaller"
> > than Germany? I mean, most of the ones I can think of would find Russia
> > "substantially bigger."
>
> There is the argument that the Russian army in 1941 was the smallest /
> worst it would be for the next 10 years - no matter what the Germans
> did. It was just recovering from the officer purge, new equipment was
> coming online. So, if the Germans ever wanted to attack Russia it
> would be better to do so in 1941 than later. Hit them when they're the
> weakest etc.

Well, but this is exactly my point; the entire German plan was
predicated - whether they acknowledged it or not - on hitting the
Russians so hard that there wouldn't be a 1942 or 1943 or 1944 for the
Red Army, it having been wiped out in 1941. Indeed, the Germans did so
little planning beyond the "we wipe them out this summer" concept that
their logistics train didn't even really envision having to supply three
army groups at several hundred miles remove in winter.

"They're small enough to take out now" is a different argument from
"they're only going to get bigger," and the one can't really suggest the
other.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Baghdad got hit by two bombers today, but neither of them committed
suicide. The al-Qaeda attack involved strapping remote-controlled bombs
to two girls with Down's Syndrome, and detonating the devices when they
walked through the market."
- Ed Morrissey
"Retards led by sadists; The Religion Of Peace(TM) in action.
- Giftzwerg
 >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? 

In article <49c274e1-a44e-42f1-bfed-2f9377e3c534
@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, eddysterckx.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com says...

> > "They're small enough to take out now" is a different argument from
> > "they're only going to get bigger," and the one can't really suggest the
> > other.
>
> Strangely enough that's exactly the argument why Nato vs. Warsaw Pact
> games are mostly set in the mid to late eighties. That was the most
> optimum moment from the Soviet's pov - any later and they'd face a
> stronger Nato while they themselves where getting weaker on the
> economic and technological fronts.

Which argues that the Soviets were (a) smarter than the Nazis or (b)
less murderously reckless than the Nazis.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Baghdad got hit by two bombers today, but neither of them committed
suicide. The al-Qaeda attack involved strapping remote-controlled bombs
to two girls with Down's Syndrome, and detonating the devices when they
walked through the market."
- Ed Morrissey
"Retards led by sadists; The Religion Of Peace(TM) in action.
- Giftzwerg
 >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line?