Treeburst155 Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 What would a real world commander consider to be the defining characteristics of a Tactical Victory? Can a Tactical Victory have different characteristics depending on the mission/objectives or other circumstances? Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 You achieve what you were required to, but at a cost. Similar to a pyrric victory, I would have thought. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcon988 Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: You achieve what you were required to, but at a cost. Similar to a pyrric victory, I would have thought. Pretty much. Phyric victory is worse though. It's when you achieve a victory, but at a -great- cost. Comes from that an ancient general who led his army into battle, won, but took so many casualties that he could no longer continue the campaign. Another example might be the battle of Trafalgar where the British defeated the French navy, yes, but they lost Admiral Nelson. Tactical victory is pretty much your average won battle. You win, but you took casualties. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: You achieve what you were required to, but at a cost. Similar to a pyrric victory, I would have thought. Sometimes its considered a tactical victory even if you do not achieve the required objective. A good example is the Battle of Coral Sea. Many regard that as a tactical victory for the Japanese, who managed to sink the Lexington vs the loss of the much smaller Shoho. However, by turning back the Port Moresby invasion force the allies were credited with the much more important strategic victory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 I would suggest "tactical" means just that. A defeat of any enemy armed force without any real strategic or operational value being gained. For instance, when the German recon battalion under Graebner attacked the British paras at Arnhem bridge. The victory for the British was tactical in nature - the enemy's armed forces were defeated - but it did nothing to improve the operational situation (the battalion was still surrounded) nor the strategic situation (the Airborne Division was still cut off from the outside world and the bridge over the Rhine was still not in Allied hands). The phrase does not have anything to do with casualties suffered or inflicted. Had Graebner's men been forced to retire with light losses, and/or had the British battalion suffered heavily, it would still have been a tactical victory for the British. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kinscherf Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 That's one way to look at it but cost may not always count. For example, toward the end of WW2 Germany had many "tactical victories" using economy of force. Commanders were able to complete their missions but in the strategic sense they did not matter. Successful delaying actions come to mind. Perhaps a tactical victory is accomplishing the mission in a manner that does not immediately and drastically improve the conflict at higher command levels - a company's victory does not affect the battalion's over all status; a battalion victory does not affect the Division’s status etc. I never understood why the second level of victory was called tactical and the others did not have military descriptions. Kevin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Originally posted by Kevin Kinscherf: That's one way to look at it but cost may not always count. For example, toward the end of WW2 Germany had many "tactical victories" using economy of force. Commanders were able to complete their missions but in the strategic sense they did not matter. Successful delaying actions come to mind. Perhaps a tactical victory is accomplishing the mission in a manner that does not immediately and drastically improve the conflict at higher command levels - a company's victory does not affect the battalion's over all status; a battalion victory does not affect the Division’s status etc. I never understood why the second level of victory was called tactical and the others did not have military descriptions. Kevin In other words, exactly what I said in the post before. It should go without saying that CM's use of the phrase "tactical victory" is not exactly textbook, they were simply looking for a description to put somewhere in between draw, minor, major and total victories. Maybe they should have said "Minor Major victory" or "Major Minor victory" instead. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kinscherf Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Hey Michael - Your post beat mine to the board. We agree on what it means. How about a small victory ... nay ... its all semantics anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 I submit the term should be changed to 'Dorosh Victory'. This means that you win, but since you are still Michael Dorosh, what does it matter? Alternatively, it might mean that although the opposition fought well, they simply lacked the stamina to keep posting at a favourable rate, and eventually resorted to making rude noises and yelling 'Yeah? Well so's your mother!'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Seconded! Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 it means anytime you don't get hit in the tacticals, cuz that really hurts! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Zhukov ROFL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Originally posted by Seanachai: I submit the term should be changed to 'Dorosh Victory'. As opposed to a 'Seanachai Victory', where the victorious general wins by waiting for the other general to die of old age. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpwase Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 :slaps knee: Victory through comedy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Originally posted by Firefly: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Seanachai: I submit the term should be changed to 'Dorosh Victory'. As opposed to a 'Seanachai Victory', where the victorious general wins by waiting for the other general to die of old age. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.