Need Help

[l3w53r]

I'm making a webpage for our computer class and the topic that was assigned to me was about wargame tactics. I'm now posting my short write-up here for your scrutiny, (suggestions, violent reactions are welcome ):

A. Difference between strategy and tactics.

Strategy concerns the bigger picture. How to collect resources and how to use those resources. It concerns logistics, how to get the supplies to different places. It concerns the movement of huge units: divisions, corps, armies. It concerns huge swaths of land, from cities to whole countries or even continents.

Tactics concerns the details of the bigger picture. It's only concern about resources is how to use the supplies it recieves; i.e. where to use the ammo they recieve.It concerns battalions, companies, platoons, squads, individual people. It concerns the details the land: individual roads, rocks, individual buildings, individual trees, individual slopes.

B. Basics:

Know your own units

-Know their capabilities

-Know their weaknesses.

-Know every minute detail.

-Know how they perform and in different conditions.

-Know how they react to different situations.

Know your enemies

-Know their capabilities

-Know their weaknesses.

-Know every minute detail.

-Know how they perform and in different conditions.

-Know how they react to different situations.

Scan the terrain.

-The more you have an idea of the terrain youe operating or going to be operating on, the better.

-Look at possible avenues of approach to the objective.

Be aware of the current situation

-Take into account the situation and condition of every unit in the immediate area, friendly or otherwise.

Be a few steps ahead of the enemy

-Anticipate what the enemy might do next.

-Think of every possible thing you and your enemy could and would do.

Take calculated risks; gamble

-Risks taken usualy become the deciding factor of any battle.

-Seize almost every opportunity that presents itself.

-There IS such a thing as being too careful.

Take the Initiative

-Always try to be the one acting, not the one reacting.

-Being the one acting means you could make the enemy do what you want to do, just as long as he keeps on just reacting and not trying to seize the initiative. That's a good thing.

-Being the one reacting means that the enemy could steer you to whatever he wants you to do. That's a bad thing.

I was also thinking if I should state that artillery is the queen of the battlefield as a basic.

Our computer teacher also happens to be a Jesuit (who happens to be deeply involved in Zen and has some torture devices, but that's beside the point ), so I was also thinking of how basic tactics could actually apply to basic everyday life. again, thanks for even reading.

[Philippe]

Originally posted by l3w53r:

I'm making a webpage for our computer class and the topic that was assigned to me was about wargame tactics. I'm now posting my short write-up here for your scrutiny, (suggestions, violent reactions are welcome ):

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

A. Difference between strategy and tactics.

Strategy concerns the bigger picture. How to collect resources and how to use those resources. It concerns logistics, how to get the supplies to different places. It concerns the movement of huge units: divisions, corps, armies. It concerns huge swaths of land, from cities to whole countries or even continents.

Tactics concerns the details of the bigger picture. It's only concern about resources is how to use the supplies it recieves; i.e. where to use the ammo they recieve.It concerns battalions, companies, platoons, squads, individual people. It concerns the details the land: individual roads, rocks, individual buildings, individual trees, individual slopes.

B. Basics:

Know your own units

-Know their capabilities

-Know their weaknesses.

-Know every minute detail.

-Know how they perform and in different conditions.

-Know how they react to different situations.

Know your enemies

-Know their capabilities

-Know their weaknesses.

-Know every minute detail.

-Know how they perform and in different conditions.

-Know how they react to different situations.

Scan the terrain.

-The more you have an idea of the terrain youe operating or going to be operating on, the better.

-Look at possible avenues of approach to the objective.

Be aware of the current situation

-Take into account the situation and condition of every unit in the immediate area, friendly or otherwise.

Be a few steps ahead of the enemy

-Anticipate what the enemy might do next.

-Think of every possible thing you and your enemy could and would do.

Take calculated risks; gamble

-Risks taken usualy become the deciding factor of any battle.

-Seize almost every opportunity that presents itself.

-There IS such a thing as being too careful.

Take the Initiative

-Always try to be the one acting, not the one reacting.

-Being the one acting means you could make the enemy do what you want to do, just as long as he keeps on just reacting and not trying to seize the initiative. That's a good thing.

-Being the one reacting means that the enemy could steer you to whatever he wants you to do. That's a bad thing.

I was also thinking if I should state that artillery is the queen of the battlefield as a basic.

Our computer teacher also happens to be a Jesuit (who happens to be deeply involved in Zen and has some torture devices, but that's beside the point ), so I was also thinking of how basic tactics could actually apply to basic everyday life. again, thanks for even reading. </font>

[Philippe]

Originally posted by l3w53r:

I'm making a webpage for our computer class and the topic that was assigned to me was about wargame tactics. I'm now posting my short write-up here for your scrutiny, (suggestions, violent reactions are welcome ):

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

A. Difference between strategy and tactics.

Strategy concerns the bigger picture. How to collect resources and how to use those resources. It concerns logistics, how to get the supplies to different places. It concerns the movement of huge units: divisions, corps, armies. It concerns huge swaths of land, from cities to whole countries or even continents.

Tactics concerns the details of the bigger picture. It's only concern about resources is how to use the supplies it recieves; i.e. where to use the ammo they recieve.It concerns battalions, companies, platoons, squads, individual people. It concerns the details the land: individual roads, rocks, individual buildings, individual trees, individual slopes.

B. Basics:

Know your own units

-Know their capabilities

-Know their weaknesses.

-Know every minute detail.

-Know how they perform and in different conditions.

-Know how they react to different situations.

Know your enemies

-Know their capabilities

-Know their weaknesses.

-Know every minute detail.

-Know how they perform and in different conditions.

-Know how they react to different situations.

Scan the terrain.

-The more you have an idea of the terrain youe operating or going to be operating on, the better.

-Look at possible avenues of approach to the objective.

Be aware of the current situation

-Take into account the situation and condition of every unit in the immediate area, friendly or otherwise.

Be a few steps ahead of the enemy

-Anticipate what the enemy might do next.

-Think of every possible thing you and your enemy could and would do.

Take calculated risks; gamble

-Risks taken usualy become the deciding factor of any battle.

-Seize almost every opportunity that presents itself.

-There IS such a thing as being too careful.

Take the Initiative

-Always try to be the one acting, not the one reacting.

-Being the one acting means you could make the enemy do what you want to do, just as long as he keeps on just reacting and not trying to seize the initiative. That's a good thing.

-Being the one reacting means that the enemy could steer you to whatever he wants you to do. That's a bad thing.

I was also thinking if I should state that artillery is the queen of the battlefield as a basic.

Our computer teacher also happens to be a Jesuit (who happens to be deeply involved in Zen and has some torture devices, but that's beside the point ), so I was also thinking of how basic tactics could actually apply to basic everyday life. again, thanks for even reading. </font>

[lcm1947]

I always thought of it as the planning vs the doing but I'm a simple person. One thing I'd mention though is you might add under Planning or some such would be to always have another plan and expect the unexpected and never underestimate the enemy. Good luck.

[Firefly]

Something I read recently:

To learn that Napoleon in 1796 with 20,000 men beat combined forces of 30,000 by something called 'economy of force' or 'operating on interior lines' is a mere waste of time. To understand how a young, unknown man inspired a ragged, half-starved, rather bolshie crowd; how he filled their bellies; how he outwitted, out-bluffed and defeated men who had studied war all their lives and waged it according to the textbooks of the time, you will have learnt something worth knowing.

General A. P. Wavell

[Mies]

In short, you could even add a third level.

Strategic level would involve the big picture.

- Battalion A take city B with the support of reinforcements C

Tactical level would involve a smaller scope with a certain level of freedom of action to the commanders.

- Company D take hill E and seal of road F with artillery support of F

Operational level would involve the platoon or even squad level where the squad leader decides how his soldiers are going to carry out their tasks.

- The foot soldiers G get the order to advance along the wall H.

Good luck with the assignment!

Mies

[Michael Dorosh]

Operations involve larger units than squads and platoons - this is the ultimate tactical level, really. Operations would concern themselves with the parent regiment/brigade and division of Battalion A.

[ August 19, 2002, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Mies:

In short, you could even add a third level.

Strategic level would involve the big picture.

- Battalion A take city B with the support of reinforcements C

Tactical level would involve a smaller scope with a certain level of freedom of action to the commanders.

- Company D take hill E and seal of road F with artillery support of F

Operational level would involve the platoon or even squad level where the squad leader decides how his soldiers are going to carry out their tasks.

- The foot soldiers G get the order to advance along the wall H.

Good luck with the assignment!

Mies

Maybe I'm wrong..

BUT when I hear the word Strategic, I think of the planning and attacking on the BIG international sized map, with Army Groups and divisions, and strateguc air command bombers, and entire navies and naval battle groups and task forces. (BIG picture)

When I think of operations I think one division or several battelions.

When I think of tactics I think of moving and attacking and planning with Companies, Squads and platoons (as mentioned).

How's that?

-tom w

[ August 19, 2002, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[l3w53r]

Thanks for replying guys.

Thanks Philippe for the comment and the story, could I put that in my write-up?

So does that mean the objective flag of CM is still part of strategy? and the tactics part is the company A move to woods then run towards building A while spotter C lays down smoke, then kill occupants of building and defend flag? Just clarifying.

What would be the defining characteristics that separates strategy from tactics? I could say that I'm moving Squad B to point D because I need that hill covered.

Icm197, totally forgot bout those, thanks.

Firefly, thanks also, but actualy I dont get it, may you explain?

Mies, I'm confused, I thought operational level was concerned with campaigns? thanks.

(somehow I have the feeling my thanks are redundant)

[Mies]

Operations involve larger units than squads and platoons - this is the ultimate tactical level, really. Operations would concern themselves with the parent regiment/brigade and division of Battalion A.

I’ve re-read my previous reply and the examples weren’t all that.

In my opinion the operational level, not to be confused with an operation itself, is the actual execution of a pre-defined plan, involving on the spot decisions. Therefore only at a low level, I said platoon before but it could also be on a company level, where commanders have the immediate feel for a situation I would call it operational.

The moment you are talking about a commander studying a map and deciding where to commit reinforcements for example I would call it tactical. The decision could have an impact on the outcome of the current battle. Let say a position is successfully defended over a one-week period. Again this could also be battalion or regimental level.

Anything above that which involves the planning and the setting of the goals of a certain mission I would call a strategically level. This would be something with a broader overview of a situation, with a large impact on the outcome and thus stretching over a longer period of time.

This also implies that you cannot say that a certain command position is always operating on a set level. It might be better to attribute the level of operations to the time scale and the impact than to a position in the command hierarchy.

Mies

[Firefly]

Originally posted by l3w53r:

Thanks for replying guys.

Firefly, thanks also, but actualy I dont get it, may you explain?

Oh, it was just a little story to say not to rely too much on military textbooks .

[Philippe]

Originally posted by l3w53r:

Thanks Philippe for the comment and the story, could I put that in my write-up?

My first two posts were intended to be quoted. I obscured the source of that story a wee bit because the exotic setting is somewhat distracting. The original is a *very* old story, written in sanscrit.

That quote about Napoleon was very good. I had originally considered prefacing my remarks by suggesting that you ask yourself what Napoleon would have said about all of this, but decided against it because his answer would have depended too much on who his audience was and what effect he was trying to achieve.

Combat Mission works at too low a level to permit strategy. But to understand what you have to do and why, you have to think hierarchically (Jesuits love that...just like Aquinas). Someday you might want to ask your teacher about the Battle of Lepanto and the earlier career of the founder of his Order.

[l3w53r]

Thanks again for all the replies guys, It's already 12am here so I don't know if I'm thining correctly, but I guess I'll just create a synthesis of what you huys said.

Is the battle of Lepanto where the founder lost his leg? thanks again.

G'nyt

[Grisha]

Late as usual, my apologies. Here's a copy of a post I placed on this forum earlier:

Military Strategy

Embracing the theory and practice of preparing the nation and armed forces for war, planning and conducting strategic operations and war as a whole. The theory of military strategy studies the laws and nature of war and the methods for conducting it; and works out the theoretical basis of planning, preparing and conducting strategic operations and war as a whole.

Operational Art

Operational art encompasses the theory and practice of preparing for and conducting combined and independent operations by large units (fronts, armies) of the armed forces. It occupies an intermediate position between strategy and tactics. Stemming from strategic requirements, operational art determines methods of preparing for and conducting operations to achieve strategic goals. Operational art in its turn establishes the tasks and direction for the development of tactics.

Tactics

A component part of military science, embracing the theory and practice of preparing and conducting battle by subunits (battalions), units (regiments) and formations (divisions, corps) of various types of forces, branches of forces or specialized forces. The theory of tactics investigates the rules, nature and contents of battle and works out the means of preparing for and conducting battle.

Of course, this requires the definition of 'battle' and 'operation'. So,

FORMS OF COMBAT ACTION (BOEVYE DEISTVIIA)

• </font>[*]combat - an organized clash of combatant units.</font>[*]blow - a short term attack on the enemy with forces or weapons (main, frontal, flank)</font>[*]battle - an aggregate of combat and blows aimed at achieving operational aims or particular objectives. The basic form of army combat actions.</font>[*]operations - actions conducted by large operational units (front, army); an aggregate of combat, blows and battles conducted in a theater of military operations or on a strategic (operational) axis, with mutual and interconnected aims, locations, and timing, according to a single concept or plan aimed at achieving strategic, operational-strategic or operational objectives (strategic, front, army)

These are Soviet definitions. They took war very seriously, literally studying it as a science associated with history. Since the Soviet were the first to realize the necessity of operational art after WWI, one can't go wrong with their definitions. As you can see, Soviet definitions appear concerned with rather large units. This was in direct response to the changes of warfare which had increased in scale and destructiveness from the Napoleonic era, on. A single battle of annihilation was no longer realistically possible when armies had increased in size and number. While tactics are necessary for the completion of operational objectives, it's at the operational level where wars are won now.

[Philippe]

Originally posted by l3w53r:

Is the battle of Lepanto where the founder lost his leg?

The very one. It is also intertesting (but less relevant for your purpose) to learn who else was at that battle, as well as who else was in Paris when Ignacio went there to study.

[Frunze]

Originally posted by l3w53r:

I was also thinking if I should state that artillery is the queen of the battlefield as a basic.

Seems to me that no single weapon is "queen of the battlefield" in CM. Some would say that it's infantry that wins battles, others that the tank battle is the most important. Learning to use infantry, armor, artillery, and other weapons in combination with each other is decisive, it's a scissors-paper-rock thing.

[l3w53r]

Thanks again for replying guys.

Could I quote that Grisha?=)

[Firefly]

The phrase 'infantry is the queen of the battlefield' is partially a pun. 'Infantry' is taken from the Spanish word 'Infanta' - the monarch's eldest daughter - but, I forget which one .