I thought I would get on my high horse and pretend to know something for a change. I looked up the dictionary definition of tactics and it listed strategy as a synonym. Not a very good definition. I looked up strategy vs tactics. The results were accurate but somewhat vague and generalized. "Strategy is long-term while tactics are short-term." "Tactic address an objective while strategy determines the overall campaign." Like I said - vague. It has been said that tactics are used by the character while strategy is used by the player. While it is not an absolute, there is a lot of truth in it. But let's look at why with some concrete examples.
During WWII Admiral Nimitz employed a strategy known as Island-hopping or leapfrogging. They would invade and capture certain Japanese held Islands to provides bases for the Pacific advance to Japan itself. Other bases such as Rabul (a major Japanese naval base) were bypassed. The American fleet would destroy whatever aircraft and ships they possessed and then largely ignore them. Rabaul had something like 100,000 Japanese when it was cut off from it's supply line. Tactically, it was a powerful military presence which would have cost thousands of American lives to subdue. But strategically it was irrelevant. Being behind our lines, it had no means to bring it's significant tactical forces to bear. So we skipped it.
A tactical solution would have been to go in after offshore bombardment, tactical bombing, and strafing with marine landings and reduced the enemy forces using flamethrowers, tanks, mortars, and American lives. The strategic solution was easier, and cheaper!
Generally tactical solutions are used to reduce or nullify the threat from a current hostile force. This can be accomplished in a number of ways. Killing the enemy is one. Another would be to blow up his ammo dumps and fuel supplies. A third would be to induce him to surrender. This was done very effectively in Singapore when an inferior invading force of Japanese convinced a much superior British military presence to surrender.
Strategic solutions are more aimed towards eliminating the enemies capacity to make war rather than reducing his current forces. For example, the Eighth Air Force strategic bombers were sent out to destroy ball bearing plants, metal foundries, oil refineries, and engine manufacturers. This had no impact on current hostile forces and therefore was not a tactical solution.
Essentially, tactics are used to determine HOW to reduce a threat and strategy determines when and where. By destroying ball bearing factories and engine manufacturing plants, we chose to make sure future tactical engagements against the Germans would occur on the ground rather than in the air. In this case the strategic solution was not cheap as evidenced by the many aircraft crews that never returned. These bombers did not reduce the current tactical power of the Wehrmacht. But it did give us more control over when and where we would engage the enemy.
*Moderator - Please feel free to move this thread elsewhere if its location is inappropriate.
During WWII Admiral Nimitz employed a strategy known as Island-hopping or leapfrogging. They would invade and capture certain Japanese held Islands to provides bases for the Pacific advance to Japan itself. Other bases such as Rabul (a major Japanese naval base) were bypassed. The American fleet would destroy whatever aircraft and ships they possessed and then largely ignore them. Rabaul had something like 100,000 Japanese when it was cut off from it's supply line. Tactically, it was a powerful military presence which would have cost thousands of American lives to subdue. But strategically it was irrelevant. Being behind our lines, it had no means to bring it's significant tactical forces to bear. So we skipped it.
A tactical solution would have been to go in after offshore bombardment, tactical bombing, and strafing with marine landings and reduced the enemy forces using flamethrowers, tanks, mortars, and American lives. The strategic solution was easier, and cheaper!
Generally tactical solutions are used to reduce or nullify the threat from a current hostile force. This can be accomplished in a number of ways. Killing the enemy is one. Another would be to blow up his ammo dumps and fuel supplies. A third would be to induce him to surrender. This was done very effectively in Singapore when an inferior invading force of Japanese convinced a much superior British military presence to surrender.
Strategic solutions are more aimed towards eliminating the enemies capacity to make war rather than reducing his current forces. For example, the Eighth Air Force strategic bombers were sent out to destroy ball bearing plants, metal foundries, oil refineries, and engine manufacturers. This had no impact on current hostile forces and therefore was not a tactical solution.
Essentially, tactics are used to determine HOW to reduce a threat and strategy determines when and where. By destroying ball bearing factories and engine manufacturing plants, we chose to make sure future tactical engagements against the Germans would occur on the ground rather than in the air. In this case the strategic solution was not cheap as evidenced by the many aircraft crews that never returned. These bombers did not reduce the current tactical power of the Wehrmacht. But it did give us more control over when and where we would engage the enemy.
*Moderator - Please feel free to move this thread elsewhere if its location is inappropriate.
Last edited:
