Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
Your name is not William.
I agree. My name is actually Jochim Kipod, the killer Hedgehog of Carpathia!


Wilf, the operational level as such was created because people agreed on it.
Yes, and folks thought the earth was flat, EBO was a good idea, and so was 4GW.
The whole discussion comes to no end because you demand evidence for a clear black/white cut between military art & science.
The only evidence I want is to be shown why it is useful. What does it add. How is it better to have something between Strategy and Tactics, rather than worse.
To lead Operation Zitadelle is nothing like leading a fire team.
OK, but that's Command. Commanding Operation Zitadelle was not the same as commanding Operation Anaconda. Operations are not the "Operational level of War." I know of one operation in Ulster that was just a total of 24 men.
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).
Yet Divisional Tactics are always definable as how a Division fights and operates.
You want clarity of separation where clarity is neither required nor appropriate.
I want clarity of expression to the degree I can understand it.