To illustrate the point, lets take the example of Operation Michael in 1918. The German tactics - using storm troops to infiltrate the allied line, then regular infantry to exploit, worked brilliantly. The offensive exceeded all German expectations. Likewise, the Germans executed three other offensives along the western front, all of which succeeded in gaining ground.

Unfortunately, the German offensives did not produce any strategically significant results. What was missing was an operational plan. These successful tactics were not linked to strategic effects, which is what operational planning does.

The offensives were not properly sequenced or focused to achieve operational objectives. Nor were the logistics trains able to keep up with the offensives. Eventually they culminated.

Let us suppose Operation Michael had been properly planned operationally. Rather than three additional, unfocused offensives, the Germans would have reinforced the original offensive to drive to Amiens, which was a key regional transportation node. Had the Germans taken Amiens, they very well could have cut the Britain-France line, enveloping the British from the south and pushing them into the sea.

The other three offensives had no operational objectives comparable to Amiens. They simply gained more ground for the Germans, which in the end, only gave them a longer line to defend.

German commander Erich Ludendorff was so focused on tactics, i.e. "break through the line," that he failed to plan properly at the operational level.

Take a look at this map of the western front of March, 1918: http://goo.gl/5BYjD.

Now go to google maps and check out Ameins here:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...,1.783905&z=10

It's pretty apparent why operational planning is important.