Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!xanth!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!emery@aries.mitre.org
From: emery@aries.mitre.org (David Emery)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: The Difference Between Strategy and Tactics
Message-ID: <3505@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 26 Jan 89 14:51:58 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 61
Approved: military@att.att.com


From: emery@aries.mitre.org (David Emery)

Over in rec.games.board, sjzwange@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Steven Jacob Zwanger)
asked:
>What exactly is the difference between strategy and tactics?

Here's my answer: 

Tactics are what you use to win battles, and strategy is what you use
to win wars.  The Germans defined an intermediate level, called
"operations", which has been adopted by the Soviets and most recently
by the U.S.  Operations are what you use to win campaigns.
---------------

Now the point of discussion for us here is:  How many 'levels' of war
are there?  Throughout most of U.S. military doctrine, there were two,
tactics and strategy.  Recently (within the last 10 years) the U.S.
has accepted the German notion of "operations", an intermediate level
between tactics and strategy.  Furthermore, some have argued that
there is a higher level, "grand strategy".  

Let me put this into WWII context.  It's tactics to use a massive
bombing raid to start off the Normandy Breakout.  It's operations to
decide where to break out of the Normandy Beachhead.  And the decision
to invade in Normandy (as opposed to Calais or Mediterranean coast) is
strategy.  The Europe-First decision (as opposed to Pacific-First) is
grand strategy.  

Why is this important?  Well, as our recent AirLand battle doctrine
has developed, such a theoretical basis makes it a lot easier to
decide who does what.  For the AirLand battle doctrine, they now
define planning times and related areas.  These are related back to
the level of war you are working in.  As I recall, for instance, the
Brigade Commander has to worry about a 12 hour battle, and is
interested in things happening in the next 24 hours.  (By implication,
anything that happens the day after tomorrow is not the Brigade's
problem.)  The Division has a 24 hour interest, and a 48 hour
"attention span".  Corps have 48-72 hour interest, and a week long
"attention span". (The numbers may be wrong, but you get the idea.)  
These times help define the area on the ground that the
Brigade/Division/Corps must control and observe.  Furthermore, this
means that the Division Commander shouldn't have to worry about
winning the entire war, just this battle or campaign.

As a staff officer, this helps me concentrate on what is important, so
I know what to ignore.  There is a tendency, for instance, for
Battalion or Brigade S-2's (I'm an Artillery Brigade S-2 in the NH
National Guard) to talk a lot about the grand sweep of the battle, but
the Brigade Commander doesn't really care.  Instead, he wants to know
what will kill him during the next 12-24 hours.  When supported by
training, this provides a very useful filter on information that I
receive, and helps me put the information into focus.

Hopefully this will generate some discussion on first, the 'levels' of
war, and second, on the role of military theory and doctrine on
fighting wars...

  	 	       	       dave emery 
    	   	 	       emery@mitre.org
     	   	 	       (CPT, FA NH Army National Guard)