War is War is Clausewitz - Page 22

Tukhachevskii · 07-25-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob's World

I really don't have a dog in this fight, but to me, when we discuss the operational level of war, it is not how Corps fight; rather it is the scope of the fight that one traditionally assigns a Division, Corps or even an Army, to handle. That scope is often regionally/terrain defined; but could be defined by some functional characteristics as well.

How a Corps fights, well, as Wilf clearly states. That is tactics.

That basically accords with Soviet/Russian doctrine too. Strategy and Operations refered to territorial/geographic expressions within which even an Army or frnt level action was considered tactics whe in contact. I find that Soviet doctrine was much more rigourous in its conceptual usage. Though over-reliance on concepts warps reality knowing what they mean can be an important part of the cognitive cement that binds armies together (unlike SOD! which I think no-one understands outsdie the small psuedo-intelletucal beret wearers who formulated it

).

Fuchs · 07-25-2012

What counts is the utility of the word.

To have a special word makes only sense if its content is distinct from the content of an alternative word.

The challenges faced by a modern corps commander or his WW2 equivalent, an army commander, are different than the challenges faced by a brigade commander.
Logistics play a greater role, fixed values become variables (such as through the ability to influence the theatre air war), geography and time are to be considered on another level. An army commander concerns himself with the question where to cross a river and what to do next, while a brigade commander is concerned with how to cross the river and how to get his folks over it in time to proceed.

You cannot expect much success if you take the classic tactics of a battalion and simply interpolate to Corps level. You need different stuff, and said different stuff should be identified with a different term.

I don't care much whether you call it "grand tactics", "operational art" or differently, but "operational art" happens to be the widespread term for it and this makes it first choice for communication. The choice has been made already, so there's little to gain by discussing language since the differences warrant a different term as laid out before.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-25-2012	#422
Fuchs Council Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Germany Posts: 2,975	What counts is the utility of the word. To have a special word makes only sense if its content is distinct from the content of an alternative word. The challenges faced by a modern corps commander or his WW2 equivalent, an army commander, are different than the challenges faced by a brigade commander. Logistics play a greater role, fixed values become variables (such as through the ability to influence the theatre air war), geography and time are to be considered on another level. An army commander concerns himself with the question where to cross a river and what to do next, while a brigade commander is concerned with how to cross the river and how to get his folks over it in time to proceed. You cannot expect much success if you take the classic tactics of a battalion and simply interpolate to Corps level. You need different stuff, and said different stuff should be identified with a different term. I don't care much whether you call it "grand tactics", "operational art" or differently, but "operational art" happens to be the widespread term for it and this makes it first choice for communication. The choice has been made already, so there's little to gain by discussing language since the differences warrant a different term as laid out before.