The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)

[M.L.]

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?"

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.