Your name is not William.

Feel free to prove that my statement is false.
It doesn't matter what others say or write, you need to prove it , really really prove it beyond doubt. Only my opinion on this counts, not anyone else's opinion.
Prove it to ME.

I'll explain; I just took it for granted that William was your name, but then I asked myself why? So what? There was no evidence (except that other appear to think that William is our name).

- - - - -

Wilf, the operational level as such was created because people agreed on it. You may go on a crusade and proclaim the hypothesis that the operational level doesn't exist, but you do not seem to grant us the chance to falsify your hypothesis. You're even moving goalposts - a few pages ago it looked as if we only needed to show the utility of the concept to justify it, now you're not content with that.
Besides, you're asking questions that were answered pages ago. And some of these questions aren't even useful.

The whole discussion comes to no end because you demand evidence for a clear black/white cut between military art & science.
There's no such clear cut, and it appears as if nobody but you seems to have a requirement for it.

To lead Operation Zitadelle is nothing like leading a fire team. There has to be a distinction somewhere in between, and the interested part of mankind appears to have agreed on calling the intermediate between strategy and tactics "operational art".

The exact separation is difficult because the meaning of designations such as brigade, division and corps varies over time and between countries. There are even differences between different conflicts that enable at times a division to play a role that had been played by an army group in an earlier conflict (division in Georgia 2008 ~ army group in France 1940).


You want clarity of separation where clarity is neither required nor appropriate.