Slap,
I'd be very interested in reading such an article. I'll look forward to your post.
M.L.,
There is a paper I posted on here a few years ago that deals with this subject. I am trying to find it and will post it again when I do. Here is the short version. General MacArthur supposedly said Strategy "Is Maneuver of Large Scale Forces". The paper goes on to point out that Maneuver dealt with the selection of the battlefield and the movement to the battlefield. Once you got to the battlefield (within range of the enemies weapons) you were at the tactical level of war.
Enter the ICBM... that changed everything because there is no place on earth that can't be hit by a missile, so the new idea was that Maneuver (operations) no longer truly existed, everything had become Tactical.... guided by Strategy (battle command). Some even thought that Strategy no longer even truly existed, except at the Political level.
Slap,
I'd be very interested in reading such an article. I'll look forward to your post.
There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
-Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
http://irondice.wordpress.com/
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
-Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
http://irondice.wordpress.com/
A strategy has to be realisable (doable) in tactics.
Yes. You have to plan operations. At the lowest level, you plan a patrol. At the highest you plan how Armies/Corps/Fronts and Army Groups fight.If the answer is yes, then a case can be made for operational planning.
What words mean, matters a great deal. Clarity of expression is usually clarity of thought and this action. Hannibal planned operations, but he had no "operational level of war." Same is true of Napoleon, Montgomery, Allenby and Slim. They all planned and conducted operations. That does not create a "level of War."If the answer is yes, BUT I don't like it to be called "the operational level of war", then you are arguing about semantics, not warfare, and it's not worth our collective time to debate the issue.
The vast majority of military theory and history does not disagree with me, and that which is does is usually abysmal. If you think there is something called "Manoeuvre Warfare" then you'll gravitate to "Operational level of War," in a flash, because its simply bad theory, not held to rigour.The vast majority of military theory and history disagrees with you, but drive on with your bad self.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Background? Sorry do you mean some sort of rank or supposed experience? I'm a former NCO with no academic qualifications. None of that dis-qualifies me from this debate. I just read the books, study the art, speak at the conferences and publish the odd-article and edit a strategy magazine.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
I think we are violently agreeing on at least part of this. We concur that "operational art" or "operational technique" exist, and that it exists to link tactical actions with strategic goals. While there is concurance on existance, the debate seems to focus on what exactly it is.
I wouldn't consider this to be purely semantics. The discussion, although a bit esoteric, is probably important as it informs our understanding of the essential concepts we use to guide the profession. If our basic definitions of how we do things are flawed, then all that flows from it likely to be flawed as well.
I'd lob the same critique at you. You've simply offered vingettes, and I've disputed your application of definitions in these vignettes and offered alternative explanations. That's fine if you don't care about what I've said - if you don't wish to dispute my alternative explanation of terminology, fill your boots. Wishing away a counter-argument with an appeal to authority, as you did above, is not conducive to proving your point.
This seems again to force separate definitions onto a single concept - is there any value to split objective into different catagories? My objective, as tank platoon commander of 3 Troop, is to take the bridge. Your objective, as Army Commander, is to move 2nd Army into province X to cut lines of communication between his capitial and his Field Army.
They are both objectives that require the application of tactics - ensure supplies are in place, select routes, use SOPs to react to enemy actions, etc. So calling one a tactical objective and the other not seems wrong. They are both objectives that have operational aspects (ie: effects that affect the next tactical engagement) - if the platoon commander doesn't take the bridge, can the invasion of province X continue? It seems to me that your idea of operational objectives is actually just a fancy way of saying "important objectives."
If the operational level was distinct and only practiced by some, then its method, "campaign planning", should be uniquely practiced, should it not? But the idea of "campaign planning" isn't something that exists only with certain sized formations; it exists when someone at any level of command decides to initate an operation through linking a series of tactical actions. When I sat down with my ANA counterpart and worked out a plan for 2 weeks of patrolling with a particular village, we were planning a campaign by linking our planned patrols and ambushes. Except for size and scope, I don't see how planning Operation Torch was something conceptually different.
This goes back to the tank platoon and the Corps. The comparison of the process of maneuvering a tank platoon and maneuvering a Corps was not to say the they involve the same execution, it was to point out that they both involve a process that is largely similar; linking tactical actions to strategic plans. If you execute operational technique well, your tactical actions as a platoon commander or a corps commander will push your further towards your strategic goals.
Last edited by Infanteer; 12-11-2010 at 08:31 PM.
There was simply no such thing as "blitzkrieg tactics". The defeat of the French Army and the BEF was a campaign predicated on one high risk endeavour, and that was the crossing of the Meuse in a very tight time frame. The Germans were much aided in this by excellent combined arms tactical doctrine, and an abysmal performance by the French.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
I'm not suggesting that it does. However, there are two ways to offer a credible opinion.
1. My opinion is XYZ, and here is the history/theory/logic/facts to support it.
2. My opinion is XYZ, and here is my direct experience to support it.
Of course, you are welcome to express your opinion absent either of the above, however, it is simply not very compelling.
There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
-Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
http://irondice.wordpress.com/
There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
-Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
http://irondice.wordpress.com/
There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
-Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
http://irondice.wordpress.com/
Is the proper adjective "Clausewittian" or "Clausewitzian," and is there a difference between the commonly-used British and American usages?
Because there is no letter "z" in Wilf's name I think in his particular case the adjectives will be "Wilfian" or "Wilfianalistic." Perhaps "Wilfianalistical."
All the serious analysis I've read on the German Army of the Second World War says as much - the Germans certainly never called it that. Citano uses the term in his writing, but he acknowledged that it was never an actual system and that the name "blitzkrieg" only has utility as a shorthand for German combined arms tactics.
"Blitzkrieg" as a word was introduced by a British newspaper and subsequently adopted by German propaganda at least a bit. It was not in use by the German military forces as a description for what they did. Even German post-war literature is quite devoid of it unless you read an English translation.
Blitzkrieg is a commonly used term to describe German tactics during WWII. Who coined the term is irrelevant. If you like, use the term "German WWII tactics."
Last edited by M.L.; 12-12-2010 at 12:14 AM.
There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
-Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
http://irondice.wordpress.com/
Commonly used by people who have not studied the subject in detail. Go and read the German field service regulations of 1934, the Soviet field service regulations of 1936, and the British of 1937. Compare and contrast and then perhaps tell us what you think "blitzkrieg" means, as a distinctive doctrine.
Manoeuvre Warfare is commonly used, yet I submit it's baby talk.
People say "Strategic Bomber", when there is simply no such thing. Again, it's meaningless.
Well go and read the literature. Study the art. The sophistry of the "operational level" is new, but the myth of the "blitzkrieg" is about 60 years old and well covered in the literature in the last 20.Wow. First there is no such thing as operational warfare, and now there is no such thing as blitzkrieg. I'm actually stunned.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
So Means is logistics and Ways is tactics?
So what you are saying is the End Ways and Means does not pertain to strategy they are purely functions within the construct of the "3 Levels of War?"There are Ends, Ways, and Means at every level of warfare.
M.L. - I'm not locking horns with you for fun. This is important stuff, because you end up with senior military men talking about "Strategic, Operational and Tactical Mobility," = Baby Talk. Meaningless!
You cannot talk about strategy is you think Means = Resources. If it does, how would you translate "Means to an End" in terms of teaching/doctrine?
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
No. Look at what I typed.
Me: "There are Ends, Ways, and Means at every level of warfare."
There are EWM at the strategic level, EWM at the operational level, and EWM at the tactical level.
How exactly could you read that and come to the conclusion that EWM does not apply to strategy?
Type Ends, Ways, Means into Google and see what you come up with.
Means=Resources (Logistics is not the same thing)
"Means to an end" is a colloquialism which has no relevance to the Ends, Ways, Means framework of strategy.
Let me give you an example
End= Cripple German Economy and Industry
Way=Bombing
Means=Bombers (crews, airfields, ordinance, fuel, parts, etc...)
As for blitzkrieg, again, it is a commonly understood to describe German WWII tactics, and it is easier to type than "the German WWII way of war which fused combined arms, speed, surprise, and "small unit initiative with armored formations (enabled by the radio)."
That the term was coined after the war is irrelevant. It was never used by the Germans. Fine. Historians are comfortable with the term without throwing a hissy fit, so I am too.
As for the operational level of war, the linking of strategy to tactics must occur. This is operational warfare.
We'll agree to disagree. Thanks for your interesting and informative opinions.
Last edited by M.L.; 12-12-2010 at 01:19 PM. Reason: Quote
There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
-Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
http://irondice.wordpress.com/
Bookmarks