Strategic,Operational and Tactical
-
Can somebody explain the differences between these three levels of war? Preferbly with examples.
-
Found something to read up about this.
http://atiam.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/11681-1/fm/34-130/Ch5.htm -
A more layman explaination by wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tactics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_warfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_strategy -
Stragetic is on the "Big Picture"
Tatical is on the Battlefield; ie for immediate results on your battle -
Let ask again in more tangible terms. Would Manstein's decision to burst into France via the Ardennes be a decision on the strategic level or on the operational level?
-
i think strategic
-
Honestly, it can be both. If u read the articles at the links provided, there is sometimes little clear cut definition in both. Sometimes, actions implemented at the lowest tactical level can impact strategic goals.
-
Doesn't it make the whole concept confusing?Originally posted by Shotgun:Honestly, it can be both. If u read the articles at the links provided, there is sometimes little clear cut definition in both. Sometimes, actions implemented at the lowest tactical level can impact strategic goals. -
Well......interesting that over at wikipedia "The Operational Art of War" game is being mentioned,since i got it according to the intro:Originally posted by fallin:Doesn't it make the whole concept confusing?
"The title “Operational Art of War” is based on a Soviet era military term meaning, essentially, “the theory and practice of army level combat”. There isn’t really a hard definition of “operational level” scale. The term is generally used to describe anything in the gray area between strategy (overall conduct of a war, including non-combat factors such as industrial production) and tactics (the details of the actions of small units). If your primary focus is the battlefield, it isn’t strategy. If you can’t smell the smoke, you aren’t really dealing with tactics. Think of the operational level as a view of the battlefield on a scale just exceeding that at which differing ranges of various direct fire weapons are significant." -
I'd say it is more operational one.Originally posted by Shotgun:Honestly, it can be both. If u read the articles at the links provided, there is sometimes little clear cut definition in both. Sometimes, actions implemented at the lowest tactical level can impact strategic goals. -
I agree, it gets a bit confusing sometimes when we think too much.
Its an operational decision since they figured the Ardennes would be defended lightly as the French believed attacking through the Ardennes with motorised forces to be impossible.
Yet, it can be argued as a strategic decision (when approved by Hitler). The Maginot line coupled with the Dyle Plan presented a formidable defense on a broad front. The strategic deliberation that in order to avoid a prolonged war, they needed to annihilate the allied troops quickly and completely. And for that to happen, they have to outflank the entire allied front, and traverse along it with secondary attacks/feints on Belgium and Holland. -
Let get this straight. For example, I want to knock out the enemy's industrial centre, strategic level decision. I decide to take a couple of towns to reach that industrial centre,operational level decision. I actually go in to fight the battles to take those towns,tactical level. Would you agree with this example?
-
Yeah, close enough I guess.Originally posted by fallin:Let get this straight. For example, I want to knock out the enemy's industrial centre, strategic level decision. I decide to take a couple of towns to reach that industrial centre,operational level decision. I actually go in to fight the battles to take those towns,tactical level. Would you agree with this example?
The strategic objective is probably closer to "starve the enemy of war supplies, materials and equipment, reducing morale and forcing them to surrender."
Operational decisions would probably be to reach and hold a particular enemy industrial centre. Subsequent decisions and observations may sound like, "by attacking and holding the few certain towns, we can create forward strong points and supply areas to mass and punch through the enemy defenses that are likely to be concentrated along the avenues of advance to the industrial centers."
Tactical decisions may sound like, "As there are limited/ constricted approaches to xxx town, we may require heavy artillery and air support to suppress the enemy while attacking from the forest with dismounted troops and along the road with mounted forces."
I'm not an expert in this field, but this is what I gather from some of the material I have looked up. Decisions at which ever level will no doubt impact the rest of the levels, especially at the Strategic level. Sh!t rolls down the hill. =)
Though they are hard to tell apart sometimes, I guess it can be observed when the decisions are actually implemented. Generally, a tactical decision should support an operational objective, and an operational decision should support directly or indirectly a strategic goal.
But for lay folks like myself, I prefer not to get confused by all this. If the decision is made by the President, or Supreme Commander etc, its a Strategic Decision. If its made by some smaller generals and colonels, its Operational. Majors and below, Tactical.
-
Simple illustration, Strategic has two types, National Strategy and Military Strategy. The National Strategy will determine the military strategy. Who make the decisions at this level? President/Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers make national strategy with advises on their respective head of departments. Military strategy determined by President/Prime Minister, Minister of War with CDF and Secretary of Defence.
Strategy level overlaps Operational level. But decisions made by CDF and his staffs, COA, CON, CAF, Joint Force Operation Chief and Task Force Chief, lowest down to battalion level.
Operational level overlaps tactical level, but normally people from Div level down make tactical decisions.
Eg, WWII USA, National Strategy: Declare war on Japan. Military Strategy: Europe first before Japan, but fight multiple theatres at the same time.
Operational Level: African theatre, Eastern Theatre, Pacific Theatre (each theatre is a operation by itself)
Tactical Level: Decisions by Paltoon leaders on Omaha beach to chiong despite kenna strong fire. -
In all due respect, I know this is just an example but I seriously wont consider the US declaration of war on Japan as a national strategy. After all, I doubt that the US had any other option than to declare war.Originally posted by wisefool83:Simple illustration, Strategic has two types, National Strategy and Military Strategy. The National Strategy will determine the military strategy. Who make the decisions at this level? President/Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers make national strategy with advises on their respective head of departments. Military strategy determined by President/Prime Minister, Minister of War with CDF and Secretary of Defence.
Strategy level overlaps Operational level. But decisions made by CDF and his staffs, COA, CON, CAF, Joint Force Operation Chief and Task Force Chief, lowest down to battalion level.
Operational level overlaps tactical level, but normally people from Div level down make tactical decisions.
Eg, WWII USA, National Strategy: Declare war on Japan. Military Strategy: Europe first before Japan, but fight multiple theatres at the same time.
Operational Level: African theatre, Eastern Theatre, Pacific Theatre (each theatre is a operation by itself)
Tactical Level: Decisions by Paltoon leaders on Omaha beach to chiong despite kenna strong fire. -
Errr..... the other option is to not declare war, its going to be a bad strategy, but it is one.Originally posted by fallin:In all due respect, I know this is just an example but I seriously wont consider the US declaration of war on Japan as a national strategy. After all, I doubt that the US had any other option than to declare war.