You draw Moltke the Elder, I bring Guderian, Manstein and their whole generation to the table, they spoke regularly about "operativ" in the meaning of "operational".

The operational level was especially helpful as a construct (which are tactics and strategy as well - all mere acoustic words and b/w contrast without the meaning given to it by others than us) during the Interwar Years.

The tactics had evolved and solved the breakthrough problem, but the exploitation of the breakthrough - the whole mobile warfare thing that was supposed to follow - had to be developed during the inter-war years. The acceptance of an operational level of warfare helped greatly in the process.
Those who did not fully embrace or understand it were stuck in short-range stuff, in tactical considerations about defeating the line in depth and the formations deployed in the line (Liddell-Hart, the French, the Italians) while those who embraced the idea that there's something "operativ" above the division tactics (~equivalent of today's large reinforced battalion battle groups) were able to address the real remaining challenge: What to do, that to achieve after a breakthrough - and how?


It's always possible to ignore the value of designations - especially if one doesn't recognize the differences like others do. The differences between leading a company and a corps are large enough to justify a separation. You can discuss against that as much as you want - that merely shows that you don't see the difference.

We could as well fragment the art of war into many more levels - small unit, multiple small units (Coy), combined arms command (mixed Bn / Bn battle group), command of multiple combined arms forces in a formation (Bde or Div), one level higher with integrated aviation support and other specialized assets (Div or Corps), theatre command, military strategy, civilian strategy.

In the end, it's much easier to just fragment it into strategic, operational, tactical and let different manuals for different unit/formation sizes suffice for the subdivisions.

"Operational Level of War" is well understood and until the early 90's "operations"/"operativ" was also well understood because the inflationary use hadn't taken effect yet. It's language, its meaning is shared and understood and it serves the purpose of communication.


A personal crusade should rather be directed against the inflationary use of words which ruins well-defined words such as "kinetic" or "operation".