Jump to content

Was it a victory? You decide!


Recommended Posts

Hmm...

The point is that there is no one success/failure to draw from this one battle if you refuse to define what the battle is.

What happened to "There is no question that this was a victory for the US side."?

If you wish to focus it on the crash site and the securing of it, then there can be no doubts that the Americans succeeded hands down.

Ok, there's what happened to it. The "focus".

If you want to ignore the bounds of this single battle and extend it out in all directions, then things are more murkey. Since CM:SF is all about the tactical battles, I suggest not getting things all mixed up and mushed together. It isn't helpful.

And there's where the IMO rather odd and exaggerated disagreement between you and BigDuke6 started: He never claimed he was sticking to the tactical level.

The contention that victory should be judged on the tactical level only is a different issue.

He wasn't "mixing" or "confusing" levels, he was trying to look at all of them. Not the most clear presentation, perhaps, but not "bad logic."

Steve writes:

Ardem and Bigduke are taking the position that there is no separation of tactical from strategic.
No. No, really: Bigduke (and maybe Ardem - I just scanned his) isn't restricting himself to the tactical level. If you can pull out a quote that shows him taking the position you say he has, of coruse I'll stand corrected. But I didn't notice any such statement.

But, um... speaking of bad logic... smile.gif

IIRC denial of the use of the pilots as show captives was held up as evidence of victory beyond the tactical level. That's true - a insurgent victory was prevented. However, that doesn't mean that some other events may not also give the insurgents victory beyond the tactical level. Two hypothetical examples: The F-16's bomb hit a children's hospital. The fact that the mosque was hosting a meeting of the AQ's current top leadership becomes known after the fight.

[ January 05, 2006, 06:22 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It seems quite likely that the majority of the insurgents involved believed that their mission was to defend the mosque. If we assume that the Americans did not march into the mosque after the battle, then I would guess that the majority of the insurgents did indeed believe that the battle was a success.

I agree. (Though I'd be surprised if the mosque in this case was very significant.)

From what I understand of the way insurgencies work, how they judge the battle may be much more important than "true tactical success" short of complete destruction.

The pilots appearing on terrorist TV would have been primiarly damaging as a show of strength, of success, on the part of the insurgents, yes?

In the same way successfully defending the mosque - whether or not the coalition wanted to attack it - could be seen as a show of strength, of success, on the part of the insurgents.

What'd Kissinger say? "In the process we lost sight of one of the cardinal maxims of guerrilla war: the guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win."

In some ways standing and fighting at all is a victory for the insurgencts, so long as enough can walk away afterword, and as long as enough of the right sort (from their POV) of collateral damage is caused.

Judging victory by those critia tosses almost everything "tactical" out the window. A coalition force might accomplish all it's objectives, deny the enemy all his, and do it all without a single loss and still end up loosing the battle. Not in any tactical sense, but in the sense that the battle, in it's waging and effect, did more to hurt their cause than help it.

I think this is what Drusus was getting at writing of the invasion of Russia, and it's not really any different than what BD6 has been talking about.

Any CM:SF scenarios won through the use asteroid bombardment, to pick a silly example, might constitue "true tactical victory" - those fast, air-portable Strykers are all out of theater when the rock hits - but still involve a huge VP penalty and a "loss" for the US/UN player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's allowing his personal opinion of the validity of the action in Iraq, and his opinion of how it will turn out, get in the way of sound logic. I hope he can see that.

Umm... will telepathy be included in CM:SF?

Or perhap smugly self-assured declarations about the "real" motives of US/UN forces will be included in "Damascas Doug" cut-scenes during the campaign?

Or have we just got to the point in the discussion where it's easier to question the motives and attitude of others rather than deal with what they actually wrote? If so, when does this thread get sent to the World Affairs board? And can I do Abbot? I've got a new Dirty Joke book that has some interesting material.

Either way I'll be buying SM:SF, btw. I hope there's telepathy, though.

[ January 05, 2006, 06:25 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am claiming that winning a battle should not be confused with the winning of the war. But this debate has gone to the point that everybody should define what they mean by winning a battle. Else there is not much point continuig. As I see it a battle is something in which you have a set of missions (or objectives) you are asked to accomplish. Hopefully with acceptable losses. There might also be other considerations like avoiding civilian casualties but they rarely are really key objectives. And generally you are allowed to do collateral damage but not excessive collateral damage.

The thing is that the missions could be impossible with given forces, and it is sure that you are going to lose the battle even before it is started. Even if you manage to do more losses to the enemy that was expected you have still lost. Ofcourse if you manage to do _really_ big losses to the enemy but not accomplish your objectives you may actually be considered winner, but even this is stretching the definition. This is in other words the CMx1 view of victory. CMSF will propably also have the "losing more than expected given the situation" way of viewing things.

I don't see any point in a definition of winning that says that every battle of the war will be judged by the end result of the war. A soldiers performance is separate from the battle. Or do you think that every german soldier was a piece of junk because germany eventually lost the WWII? The logic is: They lost WWII so this means that they lost every war, which means that they lost every operation and this means that they lost every battle. Thus every soldier didn't do well enough.

My point is that if we are talking about winning a battle, we shouldn't talk about the end result of the war. Just the one _separate_ battle. In short, there is a thing called Pyrrhic victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, I think MickeyD was utterly correct: Victory needs to be defined, or at least defined more flexibly than it has been.

Perhaps this series of questions.

Tactical: Did you achieve your immediate goals?

(By this measure I'd say the US won handly and the insurgents lost.)

Operational (Not a very accurate use of the term): Were your efforts proportional to the result? Or, put another way: Did you expend more men, machines, or supplies than the battle was worth?

(Since the US lost no men, and has plenty of machines, I'd say the encounter described was a victory for the US on the "operational" level. The insurgents lost.)

Stratgic: Now that the battle is over, who has benefited the most?

(I suspect the US is still the winner here, but of course it's hard to judge. The pilots were saved, which would represent a lot of VPs. But insurgent recruitment/support as a result of the fight are difficult to measure. The insurgents were pretty well spanked and left with nothing to show for it (probably), so I think they lost here, too.)

All in all I think the insurgents lost at every level. Like Steve. OTOH - and yeah I'm pushing this - I don't think it was so clear cut that BD6 must be demonstrating some unseemly bias by not agreeing with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that if we are talking about winning a battle, we shouldn't talk about the end result of the war. Just the one _separate_ battle. In short, there is a thing called Pyrrhic victory.

Ah, thanks for clarifying that for me.

This, as you note, is where defining victory should come in. I think it makes sense to speak of a battle that's a victory measured one way but a loss in another way. The measure would depend on what you're trying to judge. "Is Lt. Hall ready for promotion?", perhaps, as opposed to "If we keep fighting like this, can we win the war?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only a minor difference in the tactical-operational-strategic view and mine. I would say that the battle was a victory but with a too big of a price. Then the next stage is to claim that the operation was a victory but with a too big of a price for the whole strategic picture. Axis in Caucasus comes to mind, don't know if this is a good comparsion, though. But anyways the lower level is separate from the next stage in the view of the winner of the battle.

BTW I happen to think that the damage to the war effort isn't so much done in the battles than in between them. And ofcourse in the political decisions and mistakes in the way the whole war is handled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Drusus:

But to claim that Lt. Hall isn't ready for promotion because we are going to lose this war if we keep fighting like this doesn't sound fair to me...

Actually, I assumed Hall would get his promotion. smile.gif

I agree it wouldn't be fair. A battle being a "strategic" loss doesn't override a "tactical" victory.

It wouldn't be right in any way to hold a soldier doing his job well as at fault if that job itself was at fault.

In fact, I'm not sure if a soldier following the rules (like, for example, not eating babies) and winning a "tactical victory" could ever be at fault if the battle turns out to be a "strategic" loss.

Hmm... I guess because I don't think guys in the field should have to think much beyond that "tactical victory" question I gave above.

"Strategic" level stuff would be the responsibilty of those above him: Pols or maybe generals. And probably often the "fault" of no one, the result of good decisions based on bad data, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only a minor difference in the tactical-operational-strategic view and mine. I would say that the battle was a victory but with a too big of a price. Then the next stage is to claim that the operation was a victory but with a too big of a price for the whole strategic picture.
Hmm... "the price" is a good way to put it. Can I re-do mine? ")
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ardem:

The problem is tactical battles success cannot be measure just by casualty ratio anymore.

...

So tactically the American achieved there goals as did the Iraqis but to say who really won, I think BigDuke post sums it up.

there's also yet other side to measuring these battles. the one of trying to find out objectively how troops are performing in battles, without concern for strategical or even tactical objectives. this is essentially what Bigduke6 did.

it can lead to pretty surprising results. for example the Second Invasion of Fallujah was a failure if one considered how troops performed. instead of achieving the expected norm of 1:25 casulty ratio (for MOUT in which attacker has considerable combined arms assets but defender only few or none), the occupation forces managed only roughly 1:3 casulty ratio, even when they had extraordinarily excessive combined arms superiority and other advantages. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tarquelne:

Two hypothetical examples: The F-16's bomb hit a children's hospital. The fact that the mosque was hosting a meeting of the AQ's current top leadership becomes known after the fight.

Okay, you just provided two totally irrelevant hypotheticals. Now point out the actual examples in the original posted article.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by akd:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tarquelne:

Two hypothetical examples: The F-16's bomb hit a children's hospital. The fact that the mosque was hosting a meeting of the AQ's current top leadership becomes known after the fight.

Okay, you just provided two totally irrelevant hypotheticals. Now point out the actual examples in the original posted article. </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, time to put my oar in.

Bodycounts are only relevant for US troops. That the US in this case received none is a victory/success. But that 100 odd resistance fighters are killed is completely and totally irrelevant to anyone but their mom.

Arabic people are fatalistic to a degree that most in the West are unable to comprehend. Insha Allah, Gods Will they will say, shrug and move on. They aren't casualties, they are martyrs. Yes, the 'units' they belong to are disrupted by the losses but given their usual organisation I doubt too many resistance learders were lying awake in their beds from it. Really, the main pressure is upon paradise as to where they are going to find the 7200+ virgins.

So in short as people more wordy and clever then I have stated their opinions on this.

For the US:

Helicopter and persons retreived:DRAW(no matter the skill and daring of the rescue, to be victorous one needs not to get helicopters shot down.

The firefights:WIN (no casualties, lots of kills, good use of assets: a bang up job)

The operation:DRAW (Despite the bang up job during the shooting, real winners are able to camp out on the battlefield should they choose to do it)

The post action PR: WIN (bodiescounts impress the FOX network and everybody loves a succesful rescue)

Financial:DRAW (hundreds of millions of dollars worth of kit in the firefight and you got what you paid for. How much was the Kiowa?)

For the insurgency:

Helicopter and persons retreived: DRAW (good job downing the helo but having their crew paraded on Al-Jazeera would've been better.

The firefights: LOSS (good job getting that many people in the fight but achieving little to nothing in the fight kinda sucks. Oh, well break out the family pack of Virgins)

The operation: DRAW (you knocked down a helo but lost the battle for it's wreckage in a serious way. But in the end the Infidel moved into town and moved out again)

The post action PR: WIN(The locals sure were very impressed you came out in force to protect the mosque and PO-ed at the Infidel bombing out the Abdullah family. The Infidel was last seen moving out of town propelled by a large dustcloud. Yes, Western media is praising 5-20s performance under fire but really, you can only trust good ol' Jazeera, eh?)

Financial: WIN (you had a couple of thousand dollars worth of gear and you got what you paid for. Praise be to Allah that AKs and RPGs are damn near free, eh? And it's not like you were paying the insurgents anyway. How much did they pay for that Kiowa?)

Victory is a moving target.

[ January 05, 2006, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Elmar Bijlsma ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tarquelne:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by akd:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tarquelne:

Two hypothetical examples: The F-16's bomb hit a children's hospital. The fact that the mosque was hosting a meeting of the AQ's current top leadership becomes known after the fight.

Okay, you just provided two totally irrelevant hypotheticals. Now point out the actual examples in the original posted article. </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, I don't think it is fair to inculde that helicopter in the results. As I see it the battle was started because the helicopter was shot down. That is, the helicopter was shot down _before_ the battle. Imagine a CMSF scenario where you are tasked to rescue a helicopter crew. In the end you lose because you have lost that helicopter. WHAT?

Now, if your point was to take a bigger picture of the battle, then ofcourse the helicopter goes into casualties. But then we are no more talking about the Tal Afar "rescue the crew" battle but some other battle which this incident was a part of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drusus, what uninformed drivel! Honestly.

Why did that helicopter go down? Due to some children goofing around with an RPG they found?

No, from what we know the insurgents made a concentrated effort to bring it down. The insurgency then made an attempt to capture the Kiowa crew and ambush rescuers. Possibly both latter actions were preplanned but certainly all events are intertwined with each other. Excluding the shooting of the Kiowa is arbitrary and makes no sense at all. The battle starts with first shot fired. That happened to be the RPGs at the Kiowa. Just because the reporting focusses on the 5-20 men when they come to the rescue doesn't mean what goes on before it magically doesn't count.

To go with your CM:SF analogy, imagine a scenario in which the opponent has a Kiowa flying in support. You bring it down at the start of the game but after the battle the AAR screen informs you that the Kiowa didn't count. That would suck mightily, wouldn't it?

*dammit, two edits. Any other typo is here to stay*

[ January 05, 2006, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Elmar Bijlsma ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read my last post, its all there. We are talking about different battles. From the Iraqi point of view you may very well be correct. But I would tend to think that the Iraqis happened to shoot down the helicopter and then the battle started. That is, they try every day to shoot down helicopters and usually they don't succeed. This time they did and that started the battle to rescue the crew. Now I might very well be wrong, I am no expert about things happening in Iraq. But to cut the battle to start just before the helicopter is shot down is also arbitrary, but it makes sense. So does the 'rescue the crew' battle which doesn't include the helo. BTW I am quite sure the first shots fired were not the RPGs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are seeing this too much like a CM1 scenario.

One of the things that I am looking forward too in CMSF is aysemetric victory conditions where both sides want different things.

From the US perspective of both their objectives and values it was a success. It was also a success at a higher level because when ever the insurgents loose that many people in one go ( I think from a one sided account you need to at least half it to 50 or so), it is a big loss in local capacity, they may brag afterwards but to the civilian population seeing lots of dead insurgents and a few wounded yanks tells it's own story.

However I just can't see the insurgents in this as an opposing force. What I think the US was facing were a dispered armed mod, with little or no command or even pla.

I suspect most as in BHD simply heard a Kiowa was down and went to see, but being militia went armed. In that respect they were simply moving towards the crass sight and fired and any americans they came across. That force of 2-3 hundred probably consisted of more than a dozen fluid and un controlled groups of between a team and a full platoon.

Even then the idea that forty in one place could function like a platoon is unlikely.

So in is a US victory in that they achieved there objectives, but as the insurgents almost certainly didn't consist of an organised force with any objectives other than shooting at Americans ( which is probably what brought the Kiowa down, going to close to lots of people with guns, who just shot at it),seeing it in terms of who won, distorts the situation.

Now don't take offense here as i am not comparing US forces with football hooligans, but if hoolagans run amock in a shooping centre and smash windows and beat people up they can brag about it on the bus home, as a victory, because the wrecked the place and split heads. But to the people in the shopping centre it looks totally diferent, and thats asysmetric warfare, different sides with different objectives and forces, cultures and values, who can react differently to the same eventy and see the outcome in odd ways.

Regardless of the grubbing the insurgents got I have no doubt that many see their fallen comrades as martyers and themselves as brave defenders of Iraq and islam because when the americans came they fought back, even if it was in effectively. Regardless of the outcome of the fight or the body count, I think it is their accounts of their bravery that Sunni Kids heads are being filled with and that doesn't bode well for the future.

A huge danger in any conflict is to assume that the enemy thinks like you and has your values. I've often heard people on this forum disparage and attack both US motives and with venom the insurgents, as bloodthirsty fanatics , but I tend to try to see it as just to different types of force.

Fallugia is a classic example. In US terms they stopped it being a bases for the insurgency and killed up to 1,500 insurgents. But in terms of the war the general Sunni population sees it as the destruction of a city of 250,000, both to keep them off the lectoral role so the Shia could dominate the new government and as a collective punishment of Sunni for defending there country.

In that respect in terms of the political side of the conflict Fallugia can be seen as a mistake, if not a defeat. If it could have been isolated and sieged without the assault it would have been a better political policy, but I am in no position to say if that would have been practical.

Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by akd:

[/snip snip snip/But did it? I think this is a question that can be answered with a little critical thinking. No need to turn to hypotheticals. [/qb]

I agree. And I don't use hypotheticals when answering that question. I supply my answer that seperate question elsewhere.

Look:

1) Issue of whether or not pilot recovery means the battle must be judged a US victory: Hypotheticals used to demonstrate possible conditions that'd result in US srategic loss despite pilot recovery.

(The point of doing so was to show that there's still room to debate the issue of strategic victory or loss even given that the pilots were rescued, which is what I though was being implied. Hypotheticals are relevent because a "must" statement is equivilent to saying "despite anything else that might happen." So, countering with some things that "might happen" which would falsify the claim is relevent.)

2) Issue of whether or not battle was strategic victory for US:

Stratgic: Now that the battle is over, who has benefited the most?

(I suspect the US is still the winner here, but of course it's hard to judge. The pilots were saved, which would represent a lot of VPs. But insurgent recruitment/support as a result of the fight are difficult to measure. The insurgents were pretty well spanked and left with nothing to show for it (probably), so I think they lost here, too.)

See? No hypotheticals. I confess to lacking perfect knowledge of the results, but don't supply any hypotheticals that'd lead to a US loss. Instead , in the absence of evidence to a "US strategic setbeck event" I declare the battle a strategic win for the US.

[ January 05, 2006, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve you mentioned the phrase "tactical battle".

Without wishing to sound like a complete knob jockey this is tautology.

The levels of warfare are generally excepted to be:

Tactical = Battle

Operational = Campaigns

Strategic = War

The actual command levels of forces for each level are more ambiguous; but generally:-

Tactical is up to Corps level command

Operational, Corps to Theatre level command

Strategic, Army Group to the Chiefs of Defence Staff level command

Permission granted to call me a wanker if you haven't already!

BTW I agree on the term of measurement being "success" rather than victory.

You generally tend to say the mission was a success rather than the mission was a victory; so this is more in keeping with the tactical nature of all things CM.

Toodles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by cassh:

The actual command levels of forces for each level are more ambiguous; but generally:-

Tactical is up to Corps level command

Operational, Corps to Theatre level command

Strategic, Army Group to the Chiefs of Defence Staff level command

Not quite.

Tactical=NCO level command.

Operational=NCO level command.

Strategic=NCO level command.

Go ask any sergeant. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drusus has summed up the issue VERY well:

I am claiming that winning a battle should not be confused with the winning of the war. But this debate has gone to the point that everybody should define what they mean by winning a battle. Else there is not much point continuig. As I see it a battle is something in which you have a set of missions (or objectives) you are asked to accomplish. Hopefully with acceptable losses. There might also be other considerations like avoiding civilian casualties but they rarely are really key objectives. And generally you are allowed to do collateral damage but not excessive collateral damage.
Absolutely 100% spot on. It might be that the sum of collateral damage contributes to losing the broader war, but at the tactical level this sort of thing DOES NOT MATTER. It is outside of the scope of CM:SF, and therefore is not up for consideration.

Now, I'm all for independent victory conditions and even ways of assessing victory. That seems only reasonable considering how different a terrorist or insurgent thinks of combat compared to a professional army. But just as US forces thinking they've won a great tactical victory doesn't mean it will ultimately count, same goes for the other side. "Praise God, we killed two infidels! Even better, 20 of our brothers are now being fed by virgins in heaven!" as mindset for how to assess victory doesn't mean the US side lost.

One of the major problems with how some people here are defining the insurgency is their methods for determining what "success" is. By the definitions I see, anything is a success. A single man firing wildly and being cut down without causing any harm to US forces is a victory for the insurgents if one of the US bullets happens to break a window and chip some bricks of a few houses. Or 15 insurgents managing to hold off 50 US soldiers for an hour before they are all killed by small arms and grenades is a victory. Or a US patrol coming close to a mosque which blows up due to hasty stashing of bomb making materials taking a turn for the worse being a victory. I am SURE that all of these things are, in some way, counting against the US occupation score card. But to judge these things victories just because the insurgents say they are is a horrible basis for a simulation. It would be akin to ending every battle, no matter what the outcome, with an insurgent win simply because the very fact there was a fight means the US lost. Ludicrous.

Now, there is something in this helo recovery/rescue story that is atypical of most combat engagements in Iraq. The vast bulk of them are not very news worthy because they involve a brief, or even prolonged, firefight over pretty much nothing. This story is different, and because of that it had the potential (at least) of wider implications that could have some sort of operational or strategic impact. All wars, going back into the depths of recorded history, have such tactical battles. Here's one...

During the American Revolutionary War the British decided they needed to demonstrate their power and authority to nip the building resistance movement in the bud. They decided to march from Boston to Concord, Mass. The "insurgents" had superior intel and made a hasty stand in Lexington. They did not back down when ordered to. Armies on the move do not like to be blocked by farmers with weapons, so the shooting started (nobody knows who fired the first shot) and the "insurgents" were soundly defeated. Score a victory for the Brits militarily, but they missed arresting two rebel leaders due to the unexpected armed stand buying them time to slip away. The British force moved on as word spread about what had happened and a general call to arms was greeted fairly well in that part of the colonies. When the force got to Concord it found much of what they came to destroy removed (hidden) and angry people gathering on all sides. They decided a march back to Boston was a good idea. Along the way they were peppered by hit and run attacks and wound up losing nearly 30% of their force in dead and wounded. However, the "insurgents" took quite a number of casualties of their own, and probably in some circumstances were "defeated" before they could cause any casualties.

Why bring up this old American history? To once again demonstrate how difficult it is to assess tactical success/failure if larger issues are brought into the mix. This is NOT something that is limited to Iraq, or as I've already clearly shown, WWII. It goes back and back and back into history. Somewhere you have to draw the line and the line should be at whatever level of simulation you are looking at. If you are looking at the tactical battle on the Lexington Green, then the Brits won. If you are looking at the operation to destroy weapons and supplies, then the Brits scored a partial victory. If you look at the tactical engagements along the march back, it's a mixed bag depending on which one you examine. If you look at the operation as a whole, from the time it departed Boston to the time it returned, it was a defeat (though not a total defeat). If you're looking at the ramifications it had on British rule in the colonies, it was a huge and whopping defeat for the British. To continue...

The reason for the rebellion in the colonies is very complex. The superficial reasons were taxation without representation, a lack of "home rule" (especially for legal disputes), and other misc. annoyances of being governed. The real reasons went deeper. Because these political policies made the rebellion inevitable, the logic I've seen expressed by some in this thread would imply that the Brits lost the war before it even started. That no matter how many tactical battles they won after the first shot was fired, they were only digging their hole deeper. In short, the British military could not possibly have won any military engagement because the political level was incapable of providing a framework for retaining control of the colonists' loyalties. That is, at least, where the logic heads in some of these posts. That's quite a way of thinking.

The parameters for judging the success or failure of a tactical engagement must be MOSTLY, if not entirely, based on the elements that are important to that tactical engagement. Looking at wider implications is just not workable. Judging a tactical military engagement success/failure based on events that have not yet happened (i.e. overall victory/defeat) is also not workable.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cassh,

Permission granted to call me a wanker if you haven't already!
WANKER :D

Battle - a hostile meeting of opposing military forces in the course of a war (found on Internet dictionary).

Seriously though, "battle" is not defined as a tactical engagement. It is now akin to "conflict" or "fight" in modern usage. It's been that way for a long time. The "Battle for Britain", "Battle for Berlin", "The Battle of the Somme", etc. are way, way higher than tactical level. So your definitions do not fit this. Better to just stick with:

Tactical - the lowest level, generally limited to a few hours of conflict at a time

Operational - the middle level, generally a defined large scale action

Strategic - the highest level, generally the war (or theater)

This does not neatly divide itself into military organizational levels. A Battalion can fight as the sole player in an Operation or even Strategic conflict. So best to stick with the generalized notion of levels rather than trying to pin them onto the military chain of command.

Steve

[ January 05, 2006, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...