Strategy Vs. Tactics

[cyclepsycho 0]

I was just wondering if anyone knows the technical difference between strategy and tactics. In my mind the difference is this, a tactic no matter how brilliant is not going to win a battle. The use of many tactical maneuvers which are planed by a strategist are what is required to win a battle. So to use tactics effectivly you would need to have people commanding your platoons and divisions to be able to be able take the initiative, but still be able to follow an overal battle plan, something not really available in C&C. My thoughts are this, tactics, while necesary in the real world do not really come into effect in C&C due to the fact that flanking, elevation and troop inteligence are not either used or at the necesary level. What is used in C&C and indeed most STRATEGY games is indeed strategy. Any thoughts?

 

P.S. This seemed like an appropriate community to post this.

[Guest Rabbit]

Tactics are just different ways of attacking, different types of attacks, different mixtures of units. Strategy is how you coordinate them all to win.

[cyclepsycho 0]

But you must agree that tactics are only really effective when your field commanders are inteligent enough to think independitly, to a degree.

[F15pilotX 4]

Yes; for example, in the (1st) Gulf War, CENTCOM (central command, based in Riyadh) planned the overall strategy for the war, such as where the divisions/corps would be place, but the divisional/brigade commanders were the onces who implemented that strategy, and the way they implemented the overall strategy was tactics :wink:

 

i.e. Where to play the tanks and infantry (inside or outside; front or back; left or right, etc); whether to use the apaches at first, or hold them back as a suprise; to fire artillery and pound them in, or suprise them

 

the list goes on, but there ya go :wink:

[Mario 0]

Artillery would usually be the 1st thing they use right?

[Saracen 16]

A good strategy for a hard target would be to send in a special ops unit to destroy SAM units. From there you use airstrikes in the form of bombers or tomahawks to soften key targets. Then if collateral damage isn't an issue you'd use artillery to pound the enemy followed by a harsh and unforgiving ground assault with tanks. APC's housing troops will follow up the rear to eliminate the remaining presence.

 

To add to the above posts. Tactics also come into the fold during the operation where unknown elements come into play, or unsuspecting events occur. These are more instinctive decisions made on the spot should the initial planned strategy go "fubar". Which in War, they almost always do.

[Mario 0]

what does fubar mean anyway think i heard it in Saving Private Ryan but never did find out its meaning

[Saracen 16]

It's WW2 military slang, and it is still used today in the US military. It basically means that something is in plain terms "****ed up beyond all recognition"

[Doctor Destiny 41]

In military usage, a distinction is made between strategy and tactics. Strategy is the utilization, during both peace and war, of all of a nation's forces, through large-scale, long-range planning and development, to ensure security or victory. Tactics deals with the use and deployment of troops in actual combat.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strategy

[battletroop27 0]

in Halo: Fall of Reach Commander Jacob Keyes uses tactics to distract 3 covenant warships from seeing a Shiva tactical nuke coming for them and then bomb the hell out of them.

master chief uses a strategy in all three novels: "Shoot now and ask later"

an idiotic insight from battletroop27

[cyclepsycho 0]

Ah fubar I remember reading that in Bravo Two Zero. Too bad most of that "true story" was fabricated, or so I hear.

[F15pilotX 4]

In military usage, a distinction is made between strategy and tactics. Strategy is the utilization, during both peace and war, of all of a nation's forces, through large-scale, long-range planning and development, to ensure security or victory. Tactics deals with the use and deployment of troops in actual combat.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strategy

And that would be a condensed version of my post

[cyclepsycho 0]

But one needs the other correct? Strategy with out competent tacticians is use just as tactics without strategy are equaly usless.

[F15pilotX 4]

That's an interesting question, and I suppose the answer is yes, but there are so many different scenarios that it would be hard to come to a definite conclusion :wink:

[Luk3us 63]

Naa.. Its simple, they both go hand in hand. You can't have a good strategy with out the tactics to make it work in the field. And your tactics could be the best in the world but with out some kind of plan aka your strategy, its all going to be for not.

[F15pilotX 4]

For example, though Frederick the Great was almost always outnumbered, and facing two countries with many more men each than him, he was able to win as he was a good strategist, and absolutely brilliant in the battlefield :wink:

[Doctor Destiny 41]

And that would be a condensed version of my post

It's for people who don't want to read a long-winded post.

[F15pilotX 4]

It wasn't long winded, just explained in depth