-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Why whenever Holmes shows up in a thread do I get a feeling that I've wandered into a performance art recreation of the the argument clinic sketch?
To the topic at hand:
Our words may be obscuring meaning. The word "tactics" has a specific definition, (which appears to be under dispute) but what we are actually discussing might not map to that idea as well as we think.
This may be the root where much misunderstanding starts.
To the topic at hand:
Our words may be obscuring meaning. The word "tactics" has a specific definition, (which appears to be under dispute) but what we are actually discussing might not map to that idea as well as we think.
This may be the root where much misunderstanding starts.
@Holmes ... Old College, New College or Victory?
Here is a lovely photo of Old College that I took while I was there.
Assuming that you were in the Pineapple/Prison, did they still do a silver service dinner every night when you were there? Nothing more pompous than wearing full mess dress and medals for dinner on a weekday is there!
Last edited:
Odd. I still have my dueling scar from my days as a fencing instructor in Heidelberg.
As a word, you can pretty much use it in almost any way that you like. Rather flippantly, I like to refer to Strategy as being the wider aim, which can of course be linked to a wider aim(s), such as "we are going to economically disrupt Germany and geopolitically isolate her" which is the strategy, "in order to cause the economic and military growth to slow, improving our force parity with them in order to maintain the front in Russia and ultimately allow an invasion of Western Europe thus enabling an invasion of Germany.
Theatre Strategy or the 'operational' level, is about how that is achieved. I.e. by maintaining the naval blockade, establishing a strategic bombardment programme and then securing the North African Coast. This was British Strategy in 1942 as presented to the USA.
The tactics are about what needs to be done in order to meet that.For example, securing the North African coast necessitated the defeat of German and Italian forces around El Alamein and pushing them out of Egypt and then North Africa.
There are many descriptions and different markers for disambiguation, but the 'Aim', the 'How' and the 'What' is (in my opinion) the essential part of it.
For years I've lived a double life.
In the day I do my job,
I ride the bus,
Roll up my sleeves with the hoi polloi.
But at night I live a life of exhilaration,
Of missed heartbeats and adrenaline,
And, if the truth be known,
A life of dubious virtue.
I won't deny I've been engaged in violence,
Even indulged in it.
I have maimed and killed adversaries,
And not merely in self defence.
I have exhibited disregard for life,
Limb,
And property,
And savoured every moment.
You may not think it to look at me,
But I have commanded armies,
And conquered worlds.
And though in achieving these things
I have set morality aside,
I have no regrets.
For though I've led a double life
At least I can say,
I have lived.
Tactics are concerned with doing the job “right,” and strategy is concerned with doing the “right” job.
USAF College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education (CADRE).
If you look at a ww2 Field Manual USA or German, you will see how tactics was taught and applied, and its like it is generaly understood today.
Last edited:
Just curious, what's that cyber security awareness? As I understand you just lecture common military people on, i.e. not professionals?
I remember some cyber security scandals there and there in different countries, related to military, including the UK. Don't remember exactly what it was, but something along the lines of a password written on a piece of paper and available for the whole room to see.
Cyber security awareness is taught to all members of the UK military and any civilians working on MOD property. The stuff I teach is at the postgraduate level, so both professionals and amateurs. It is lectures and not training courses, so more about concepts than what to do.
That happens all the time. Passwords left on pcs, on the back of ID cards etc.
There is also this famous one:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sas-bunglers-had-secret-computer-codes-in-pockets-twpm2q7cw85
I truly love that skit, and it is very apropos.
To me, Strategy is a mental process where you sit back and philosophize on the best way to achieve your objective over time. Tactics are you do today, right now, immediately based on what your eyes tell you. When the two are in harmony, all is well; when one conflicts with the other, you have problems.
Best example I know of this is the American Revolution in the Deep South.
Britain's strategic aim in the latter part of the war was to cut the South off from the North and cut the strength out from under Washington's Continentals. There were many British supporters in the South who were not necessarily interested in the agenda being set by the Yankee Rebels.
What does Britain do? Send in a brutal, vicious, killer named Banestre Tarleton who used Gestapo Tactics to achieve his strategy. Brutally repressing the population, murdering soldiers who had surrendered under a white flag, the strategic result of these poorly thought out tactics is the South rose up against Britain.
This, of course, leads to one of my favorite battles ever: Cowpens, General Daniel Morgan's tactical masterpiece, resulting in Continentals slaughtering Tarleton's Legion and beginning Cornwallis' long retreat to Yorktown. The rest, as they say, is history.
Last edited:
Well, since we are putting creds on the table, let me tell you - true story - that I worked at the Ecole Militaire, doing military research and prospective.
In a junior position for a short time.
About what you ask ? Well, it was more than 10 years ago, and included a perspective for the next 10 years, so I will just say it would be better for my reputation if no one put his hands on whatever I wrote back then.
I do very well remember, though, and that's another true story, that a good 15% of the time of the department was spent about discussion on whether the bench in the waiting room at the entrance was our service bench or the bench of the service one floor down doing exactly the same thing as we did, and which whom we never ever talked.
There were also expeditions from them to take the bench down, and from us to bring back the bench up. Early in the morning so no one would see us. At 9H30.
In a junior position for a short time.
About what you ask ? Well, it was more than 10 years ago, and included a perspective for the next 10 years, so I will just say it would be better for my reputation if no one put his hands on whatever I wrote back then.
I do very well remember, though, and that's another true story, that a good 15% of the time of the department was spent about discussion on whether the bench in the waiting room at the entrance was our service bench or the bench of the service one floor down doing exactly the same thing as we did, and which whom we never ever talked.
There were also expeditions from them to take the bench down, and from us to bring back the bench up. Early in the morning so no one would see us. At 9H30.
Strategy is about making sure that you have enough well-armed and supplied troops in the general area to utilize tactics effectively, or about preventing the enemy from doing so. Tactics is more about using those troops in an effective way, once they're there are combat-ready.
Winning a battle decisively with 5000 of your men against 5000 of the enemy is a case of effective tactics.
Winning a battle decisively with 20,000 of your men against 5000 of the enemy is a case of effective operational-level strategy.
Winning a battle decisively with 5000 of your men against 5000 of the enemy is a case of effective tactics.
Winning a battle decisively with 20,000 of your men against 5000 of the enemy is a case of effective operational-level strategy.
Strategy is formulating/creating a concept how to defeat your enemy. Scale is part of that but only due to the size of those conflicts. A tribe with 30 warriors can also create a strategy on how to defeat the neighboaring tribe in the stone age like denying them their food supply.(if we manage that they lose) How they do that is an operational question (we sneak i nat night and burn their harvest and kil ltheir cattle) and if skirmishes occur we are at tactics even if all 30 warriors are invovled. (spears in front archers, second row) which could end in a deceicive battle and end the war with a tactical situation (yes, thats why certain countries been so keen on it)
The UK formulated a strategy to strangle Germany with a blockade in 1914 for example. A tactical question is how many escorts do you assign to a capital ship and what kind of escorts. An operational is where to bring your fleet ,why and how to deploy it, how to enforce that blockade.
If you do it proper all operational and tactical questions are part of your strategic goals and concepts how to win the war.
If that blockade is a war winning strategy it is irrelevant how many ships you lose in each tactical engagement as long as you can mantain that blockade.
We punch a hole into the French front and then we see what we do is for example no strategy. The Schliefen plan was one. If good or bad is debatable but it was a strategy to win the war.
Last edited:
Thats logistics, not strategy. You think generals dilberatly plan not to have that as a strategy?.
Thats a tactic.
Yes effiecency is usfull but you can achive your strategic aim without being effiecent. You can effectivly do the wrong thing and produce the oposite of your startegic aim.
Example producing more trucks and steam engines in 1940 instead of producing more sythethetic oil plants, since there are 171 different trucks in operation in the German army and it has yet to decide on the 23 it will have as standard equipment, producing the wrong item effectivly produces the wrong thing required by the Army and in 2 years time when that production choice reaches maturity means your strategic options are less, as now you dont have the fuel to run what you already had let alone what you just produced. You have produced trucks under capaicty, 1 tonners, with limited of road functions, and everyone knows you building up a massive motor pool, ie russia is forwarneda fully moterised germany is happening, and acts acordingly, at the cost of munitions to prosecute a war, which if against France gets you 290,000 moter vechicles as it a quite a mechanized national force if you defeat it.
Is it?, so technology, doctrine and morale and circumstances played no part?. Did one side have spears and muzzle loadders while the other bre4ach loading rifle cannons and modern breachloading shoulder arms, like omdurman.
I would think the 4:1 numerical odds had something to do with it.
Last edited:
Punche a hole into the French line and see how they react can be a part of an attritional strategy. This was the basic premise of the battle of Verdun, create a hole in the line to and thereby force the enemy to pour its resources to constantly strengthen an inferor position and bled there.
Now the battle of Verdun as executed was not really a tremendous success (depends whether 1:1 exchange rate is affordable by the German Army, the goal was certainly a more favorable one).
There is always a worse idea. That's the nice thing in strategy... it is always to possible to do it worse.
