Tactics or Strategy?

[Wretch]

Could someone helpful please outline the difference between tactics and strategy? I always considered the two terms to be more or less interchangeable, but now I see I'm in the wrong.

[MasterGoodale]

[Wretch]

No need to be like that.

[CBase]

Strategy deals more with planning. Tactics deal more with the execution of a plan. So, for example, in Combat Mission, the decision to seize a building or a hill is a strategy decision whereas the actual issuing of commands to the units involved in the attack deals with tactics.

When you are looking over a Combat Mission map and deciding what to do you are dealing with strategy. When you actually click on a unit and issue a command you are dealing with tactics.

[Wretch]

Thank you. That clarifies a few things.

Edited: To put the 'h' in 'thank'

[ November 11, 2002, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Wretch ]

[MasterGoodale]

Originally posted by Wretch:

No need to be like that.

sorry wretch, I guess it's sort of an inside joke. The reason I did that is because I posed the same exact question about a week ago! LOL! I argued it's as much strategy as tactical (large scale vs small-scale planning basically)

sorry, meant no harm. (I know a few people who remember my post laughed though)

[Bullethead]

Originally posted by Wretch:

Could someone helpful please outline the difference between tactics and strategy? I always considered the two terms to be more or less interchangeable, but now I see I'm in the wrong.

Strategy is the big picture stuff, dealing with ultimate victory in the whole war or at least an important theater of it, and planning the general course to get there. This is a matter for heads of state and their advisors, and theater commanders and their advisors.

Tactics is the manuevering and shooting of small units and individuals, where the aim is victory in a particular firefight. It's the business of privates, NCOs, and officers up to about the rank of colonel.

Somewhere in between is the operational level. It's the business of managing divisions, corps, and even armies along important axes to meet the conditions necessary to achieve the strategic goals. For example, advancing across the space between 2 major rivers, when there are 5 or 6 such rivers between you and the enemy capital.

So strategy is the master plan for winning the war, operations is the step-by-step method of achieving strategic goals, and tactics is the step-by-step method of achieving operational goals. Strategy builds units and sends them to a given front. Operations masses the units along the chosen axis to achieve superiority and plans the offensive. Tactics uses the units to win the series of firefights necessary to move along the chosen axis.

[StellarRat]

Strategy is what happens before a battle, tactics is what happens on the battlefield. Generally, good strategy will do more for winning a war then good tactics. Example: If you manage to get a 4 to 1 advantage of troops and ammo to a battle because you have planned your troops movements and supplies carefully then even if the enemy general is a master tactician you're still probably going to kick his butt (all other things being equal.)

[MasterGoodale]

hehe good ole' bullethead.

he's right technically, but the argument can easily be made that the planning in this game is at a level in some scenarios and operations that requires "strategy". In Chess you only command 14 pieces on a small board but it's still a strategy game by definition.

Just my thoughts.

Hey bullethead are you going to play by email with me or what?

Scaredy cat.

[StellarRat]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

Strategy builds units and sends them to a given front.

Actually, my understanding is that this is called "Grand Strategy". While maneuvering/positioning/supplying units before a battle is "strategy". Am I nit-picking?

[ November 11, 2002, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by MasterGoodale:

In Chess you only command 14 pieces on a small board but it's still a strategy game by definition.

Um, yes. That's because there's only one way to "kill" an enemy unit in chess (put your piece where his is), hence no room for tactical prowess.

Apples and oranges, but you're learning.

[Lou2000]

Strategy is buying a bottle of fine wine when you take a lady out for dinner.

Tactics is getting her to drink it.

(Frank Muir)

Lou2000

[MasterGoodale]

See what I mean Wretch???

[General Tacticus]

If you can smell the gunsmoke, it's tactics. If you can smell the fumes from your factory, it's strategy. If you can't smell either, you're in that grey area called "operational".

[Joe Shaw]

Personally I wouldn't consider anything in CM to be strategy, I think it's all tactics at this level.

There are grey areas however.

Most of the confusion stems from the industry (that's the gaming industry, and specifically the computer gaming industry) practice of referring to wargames as "strategy" games. So in essence I suppose it could be said that we're talking about apples and oranges ... only using the same word for each ... now I think I'M confused.

Joe

[StellarRat]

Originally posted by Joe Shaw:

Most of the confusion stems from the industry (that's the gaming industry, and specifically the computer gaming industry) practice of referring to wargames as "strategy" games. So in essence I suppose it could be said that we're talking about apples and oranges ... only using the same word for each ... now I think I'M confused. Joe

Plus the terms "strategy" and "tactics" have different meanings in civilian and military circles.

[Tarquelne]

There is some overlap between the words, esp. in how they're commonly used. A "tactic" is, speaking very generally, a way to do something. It's most usually applied to what and how one does things in combat.

Strategy has a similar meaning ("How to get something done.") AND also has then "grand" meaning, fitting it into the strategic/operational/tactical breakdown, which has more to do with scale than anything else.

"Strategy" generally has connotations of the involvement in a far-reaching plan or motivations beyond the accomplishment of whatever end the strategy will directly bring about.

(In gaming parlance, though, a "strategy game" is one in which you are encouraged to sit there and think and the pace is relatively slow.)

"Tactics" is usually applied to specific, detailed and/or concrete actions or methods.

CMBB is a "tactical" game because of the scale and wealth of details the game includes.

A game with the same scale but much more abstract - a "WWII tactical combat collectable card game" for example, would be "tactical" in scale but probably "strategic" in play. (Or, more likely, shallow - but "strategic" is what it'd aspire to.)

CMBB is a "strategy" game because you do use "strategies" when playing, and "strategize" about what you're doing, in the looser "How shall I do this?" sense of the word.

So:

The terms _are_ "more or less interchangable". "Less" on this board, though, because the distinction is more likely to matter.

[Abbott]

Strategy

The branch of military science dealing with military command and the planning and conduct of a war.

Tactics

The branch of military science dealing with detailed maneuvers to achieve objectives set by strategy.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Abbott:

Strategy

The branch of military science dealing with military command and the planning and conduct of a war.

Tactics

The branch of military science dealing with detailed maneuvers to achieve objectives set by strategy.

Oh !

I like that one

its almost as good as:

"Strategy is buying a bottle of fine wine when you take a lady out for dinner.

Tactics is getting her to drink it.

(Frank Muir)"

(Just for fun)

-tom w

[Guest Mike]

Strategy (or more accurately Strategic level) is "Strategic Command", Tactics (Tactical level) is "Combat Mission"!

[JonS]

Taken from MCDP 1 - Warfighting. Wordy, but fairly comprehensive.

LEVELS OF WAR

Activities in war take place at several interrelated levels which form a hierarchy. These levels are the strategic, operational, and tactical.

The highest level is the strategic level.[1] Activities at the strategic level focus directly on policy objectives. Strategy applies to peace as well as war. We distinguish between national strategy, which coordinates and focuses all the elements of national power to attain the policy objectives,[2] and military strategy, which is the application of military force to secure the policy objectives.[3] Military strategy thus is subordinate to national strategy. Military strategy can be thought of as the art of winning wars and securing peace. Strategy involves establishing goals, assigning forces, providing assets, and imposing conditions on the use of force in theaters of war. Strategy derived from political and policy objectives must be clearly understood to be the sole authoritative basis for all operations.

The lowest level is the tactical level.[4] Tactics refers to the concepts and methods used to accomplish a particular mission in either combat or other military operations. In war, tactics focuses on the application of combat power to defeat an enemy force in combat at a particular time and place. In noncombat situations, tactics may include the schemes and methods by which we perform other missions, such as enforcing order and maintaining security during peacekeeping operations. We normally think of tactics in terms of combat, and in this context tactics can be thought of as the art and science of winning engagements and battles. It includes the use of firepower and maneuver, the integration of different arms, and the immediate exploitation of success to defeat the enemy. Included within the tactical level of war is the performance of combat service support functions such as resupply or maintenance. The tactical level also includes the technical application of combat power, which consists of those techniques and procedures for accomplishing specific tasks within a tactical action. These include the call for fire, techniques of fire, the operation of weapons and equipment, and tactical movement techniques. There is a certain overlap between tactics and techniques. We make the point only to draw the distinction between tactics, which requires judgment and creativity, and techniques and procedures, which generally involves repetitive routine.

The operational level of war links the strategic and tactical levels. It is the use of tactical results to attain strategic objectives.[5] The operational level includes deciding when, where, and under what conditions to engage the enemy in battle — and when, where, and under what conditions to refuse battle in support of higher aims. Actions at this level imply a broader dimension of time and space than actions at the tactical level. As strategy deals with winning wars and tactics with winning battles and engagements, the operational level of war is the art and science of winning campaigns. Its means are tactical results, and its ends are the established strategic objectives.

The distinctions between levels of war are rarely clearly delineated in practice. They are to some extent only a matter of scope and scale. Usually there is some amount of overlap as a single commander may have responsibilities at more than one level. The overlap may be slight. This will likely be the case in large-scale, conventional conflicts involving large military formations and multiple theaters. In such cases, there are fairly distinct strategic, operational, and tactical domains, and most commanders will find their activities focused at one level or another. However, in other cases, the levels of war may compress so that there is significant overlap. Especially in either a nuclear war or a military operation other than war, a single commander may operate at two or even three levels simultaneously. In a nuclear war, strategic decisions about the direction of the war and tactical decisions about the employment of weapons are essentially one and the same. In a military operation other than war, even a small-unit leader, for example, may find that “tactical” actions have direct strategic implications.

Notes:

[1]. Strategic level of war: “The level of war at which a nation, often as a member of a group of nations, determines national or multinational (alliance or coalition) security objectives and guidance, and develops and uses national resources to accomplish these objectives. Activities at this level establish national and multinational military objectives; sequence initiatives; define limits and assess risks for the use of military and other instruments of national power; develop global plans or theater war plans to achieve those objectives; and provide military forces and other capabilities in accordance with strategic plans.” (Joint Pub 1-02)

[2]. National strategy, also referred to as grand strategy: “The art and science of developing and using the political, economic, and psychological powers of a nation, together with its armed forces, during peace and war, to secure national objectives.” (Joint Pub1-02)

[3]. Military strategy: “The art and science of employing the armed forces of a nation to secure the objectives of national policy by the application of force or the threat of force.” (Joint Pub 1-02)

[4]. Tactical level of war: “The level of war at which battles and engagements are planned and executed to accomplish military objectives assigned to tactical units or task forces. Activities at this level focus on the ordered arrangement and maneuver of combat elements in relation to each other and to the enemy to achieve combat objectives.” (Joint Pub 1-02)

[5]. Operational level of war: “The level of war at which campaigns and major operations are planned, conducted, and sustained to accomplish strategic objectives within theaters or areas of operations. Activities at this level link tactics and strategy by establishing operational objectives needed to accomplish the strategic objectives, sequencing events to achieve the operational objectives, initiating actions, and applying resources to bring about and sustain these events. These activities imply a broader dimension of time or space than do tactics; they ensure the logistic and administrative support of tactical forces, and provide the means by which tactical successes are exploited to achieve strategic objectives.” (Joint Pub 1-02)

In terms of the Gulf War (Round 1 that is, in 1990/1991), from the US perspective (all examples in no particular order):

Strategy: Determining which units - air sea and land - to ship to the Gulf. Activating National Guard/Reserve units. Forming a coalition. Defining victory in terms of liberating Kuwait, rather than toppling Saddam.

Operational: The decision to do the big left hook. Schwarzkopfs' (sp?) decision to have the airborne on the left and the Marines and minor coalition forces on the right. The deception plan of having the marines floating around in the Gulf. The long air campaign before the land offensive.

Tactical: The Battle of the 42(?) Easting. Opening the air campaign with strikes against AD assets. The FARPs set up for 82nd and 101st inside Iraq. The Highway of Death.

Regards

JonS

[ November 11, 2002, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[energy76]

Originally posted by Mike:

Strategy (or more accurately Strategic level) is "Strategic Command", Tactics (Tactical level) is "Combat Mission"!

And Operational (Operational level) is Airborne Assualt! Gosh, Battlefront should combine the three and... :cool:

I suspect that I manage a simplified strategic level of war whenever I play Freeciv(a Linux Civilization clone). How cool...

[ November 11, 2002, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: energy76 ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by energy76:

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

Strategy (or more accurately Strategic level) is "Strategic Command", Tactics (Tactical level) is "Combat Mission"!

And Oerational (operational level) is Airborne Assualt!</font>

[von Lucke]

"Tactics make the steps from which operational leaps are assembled, strategy points out the path."

--- A. A. Svechin, Strategiia, 1926.

[ November 12, 2002, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: von Lucke ]

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

Um, yes. That's because there's only one way to "kill" an enemy unit in chess (put your piece where his is), hence no room for tactical prowess.

Heresy! Burn him! :mad:

Ah, what can I say. Typical DAT.

Actually there are tactics in chess (which I suspect you knew, given your winking smiley), which have to do with the interplay of pieces. For example, pinning a piece so that it can't move without allowing a more valuable piece to be attacked, or a knight fork, attacking two pieces in a situation where the other player can only defend one.

As a former chess addict I just had to set the record straight on that one.