Tactics vs. Strategy: Levels of War Explained - Military History Handbook
This episode of the Military History Handbook delves into the theory of 'Levels of War' to explain the differences between tactics, operations and strategy, as well as explore some minor levels in between. The Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944 is used to illustrate these levels with a practical example.
The Military History Handbook is a beginner's guide to military history. Theory, terminology and more are explained in compact videos.
Further Reading:
Joint Publication 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States (March 2013, incorporating change 1 July 2017), Chapter I, Section A.
Clifford Rogers, ‘Strategy, Operational Design, and Tactics’, International Encyclopedia of Military History (2006).
Martin Dunn, ‘Levels of War: Just a Set of Labels?’, Clausewitz.com.
www.clausewitz.com/readings/D...
Timestamps:
00:00 Introduction
00:48 The Big Three
05:01 Minor Levels
08:20 Normandy Example
11:06 Closing Remarks
"Strategy without tactics is the long road to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." Sun Tzu
If Sun Tzu really said that, I have to read “The Art of War”. That’s such a forward thinking statement.
@@apok1980 read it
@@apok1980 recommend the Joshua graham version of that on KZhead
Or point at the occupation of iraq and Afghanistan and just say "this!"
@@wancelemuel6633 If the goal was to enrich the owners of military industries the strategy might be called a success. 🙂
You've covered tactics, strategy and operations. Now all you have left is the labyrinth that is military administration.
I'm pretty sure that's more complex than quantum studies.
A headache indeed 😂
@@Zerpderp0 It becomes a bit easier when you accept the military is a huge money laundering machine.
Great clip and explanation - Words come from Greek. 'Strategos' was the key person who organised an army in time of war. 'Tactikos' were the skills used by soldiers (it's a semi-onomatopoeic word based on the sound of clashing swords - "tack-tick, tack-tick....."). They are both absolute and relative terms. So, in the latter usage, the higher levels are more strategic, while the lower levels are more tactical. The most complete spectrum I've seen is very similar to that described - task - technical - tactical - grand tactical - operational - strategic - grand strategic - geo-political. As well as the military usage, a similar concept is also used as the basis for levels in business capability frameworks and vocational / higher education qualification levels. I've not seen 'campaign' included before in this context, but it could be; have seen it more in spectrums like - contact - action - battle - campaign - theatre - war.
That means.. translated into chess.. A political strategy would be decisions about which tournament formats would give (more) growing opportunities or rating points. Decisions about the study plan and training priorities. A military strategy would be a training for a specific tournament or opponent, decisions about openings and practicing of specific theory (side-lines). But also decisions about quick draws and forfeits after exaustive games and if life interferes. A campaign would be the actual chess game, decisions about which operations need to be where to get at least a draw. But also evaluations about counterplay of both players, which player is attacking or defending a given position, when to further complicate or simplify a game and time management. Operations may then be where the time is mostly spent. Evaluating piece strength, activity and flexibility, king safety, positional wholes, weaknesses, strengths and control points. Decisions about key squares and opportunities to either create or fix imbalances, opening up or closing lines and diagonals, planning routes to get bad pieces to more active squares, decisions on positional targets, move orders, zwischenzug opportunities, prophylactic moves, retreatment squares and pawn structures. A major tactic would be a deflection, decoy, overloading, clearing sacrifice, distant opposition. Decisions about how to trap a piece and how to spin a mating net. A minor tactic would be a pin, any threat or exchange, attempts of blockading pawns or dominating pieces. Decisions about swindles, stalemate traps and repetitions. And technical would be stuff like being able to manage low time issues like the long distance precision moves and calculation speed, and being able to manage memory for like long calculations, side-line theory and deep main theory, and being able to visualize correctly when only given the notation (even when playing as black). Decisions would include getting a new mouse, certain uci compatible apps and engines, and any QoL equipment for longer tournament formats like large water bottles or tea cans, even a sleep mask, headphones and an analogue wrist watch could be handy.
Very important part of chess, nice seeing it on this video, I've always thought of chess in terms of the following: Objective Level : What do you want from the game, are you playing for a draw or for a win, do you need a quick game to recover, or do you want to wear down your opponent, etc. I think of this level as the level above the game, its what you want from it. Strategical Level : How developed are your pieces, are your pieces on good squares, open or closed position, pawn structure, positional weaknesses, endgame potential, etc. This level is the highest level within the game, to achieve your ultimate objective for it. Operational Level : The hardest one to describe. This is what I think of when I hear people talking about "ideas", its not yet at the tactical level but its more closely related. Integrating tactics to achieve strategic outcomes. For example exploiting a weakness in king safety, after a few tactical sequences you might have forced a line to win their knight for a pawn. Tactical Level : A specific move sequence. This is to do with the specific moves themselves, deflecting pieces, pinning or forking, trade/move order. The most limited and easiest to explain, its just concerned with moving the pieces to win material or some other outcome from above. So in a game they might be used like the following, you are playing for a win, and are against a weaker opponent, so you go down a riskier opening line. The game ends up in a closed position, you identify a weakness as their queenside pawns are hard to protect, only the bishop and knight are capable of defending, but the knight is on the other side of the board. Your operational objective is to open up the position, and to do this by exploiting this weakness. First you find a tactic allowing you to trade your knight for their bishop, this prepares for the opening of the position as you will now have a bishop for a knight, and removes the only thing close enough to defend the pawn. Next you pin their back pawn, and use this to take the otherwise undefended pawn on the queenside. You have achieved your operational objective by exploiting the weakness to open up the game, as you have broken their queenside pawn chain and have opened the position up on that side. This involved two tactics. This operational objective furthered your strategic position, as now you dominate the queenside, and they have little ability to mount any counter attack as their pieces are stuck on the kingside behind their pawns, and have knights instead of bishops. This achieved your overall objective as you are coming out with a win by playing a riskier position.
This reminds me of a tongue-in-cheek joke I read a while ago: "How you approach a girl to ask her out on a date, that's strategy. What you do with her on your date, that's tactics."
At last, a clear, concise explanation of the groundwork terminology of Strategy and Tactics! Thank you!
Just found out your channel, absolutely love it, keep it up!
Technical and pragmatic approach. Nice.
Great breakdown. Thank you.
best channel in the world keep it up
Nice and precise video.👍
This is one of the better videos on this often under-recognized subject matter. I do think you should have addressed the sometimes cited level of ‘grand strategy’ however. Military and political strategy are simply two areas of strategy (no higher or less than), whereas grand strategy is often seen as an actual layer above. Wikipedia gives a fair intro to the concept: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_strategy
I was looking for this explanation. It was a concise and well-illustrated one. Thank you. (edit :typo)
very informative
Well done explanation of the modern view. I stick to the older view of Grand Strategic, Strategic, Grand Tactical, and Tactical. People have enough trouble just differentiating Strategic and Tactical.
In grand strategic, many wars between decades or centuries and political intrigue are involved
If it fits into your series ... perhaps you could provide an episode explaining why troop movements are called a "right hook" or other boxing terms as if transporting vehicles were itself a form of combat. Why does the path in which an arrow came from matter ... instead of just the fact that the troops are going to clash when they reach the FEBA..? Thanks! (good explanations also.)
The video is an episode of the Military History Handbook, a beginner's guide to military history. The video explores the theory of levels of war to explain the differences between tactics, operation and strategy, as well as some minor levels in between. The video uses the Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944 as a practical example of these levels. War levels are a way of classifying and analyzing the objectives, missions and tasks of the armed forces at different scales and contexts. They help commanders plan and synchronize operations, allocate resources, and assign tasks to the appropriate command. The three main levels of warfare are: Strategic: The highest level, dealing with national or coalition objectives, policies, and guidelines for the use of military force. At this level, political and military leaders define what they want to achieve with war and why. Operational: the intermediate level, which deals with designing, conducting, and sustaining campaigns and military operations. At this level, operational commanders plan how to use available forces to carry out strategic missions and achieve military objectives. Tactical: The lowest level, which deals with the execution of battles and military engagements. At this level, tactical commanders apply the techniques and procedures to effectively employ units and weapons in combat. In addition to these three main levels, the video also mentions some minor levels that can be used to describe specific aspects of the war, such as: Grand Strategy: the most comprehensive level, which deals with the coordination of all instruments of national or coalition power (military, diplomatic, economic, cultural, etc.) to achieve long-term political objectives. Theater Strategy: The level dealing with the allocation and deployment of military resources in a specific geographic area of interest or operations. At this level, theater commanders set priorities and guidelines for campaigns and operations within their area of responsibility. Logistics: the level that handles the supply, transport, maintenance, and support of military forces. At this level, logistical planners ensure that forces have the necessary resources to sustain their operations at all levels of warfare. The video uses the example of the Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944 to illustrate how these levels of warfare relate to each other. The invasion was part of the grand Allied strategy to open a second front in Western Europe to defeat Nazi Germany. The invasion was planned and conducted by Supreme Allied Command Europe (SHAEF), led by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who established the theater strategy for Operation Overlord. Operation Overlord was the operational campaign aimed at establishing a beachhead in Normandy and advancing into the interior of France. The campaign consisted of several smaller operations, such as Operation Neptune (the amphibious landing on the Normandy beaches), Operation Cobra (the breach of the German front) and Operation Lüttich (the German counter-offensive at Mortain). Each operation involved several battles and engagements between Allied and German forces in different sectors of Normandy, such as Omaha Beach, Saint-Lô and Falaise. These battles and engagements were the tactical levels of warfare, where individual units fought for control of terrain and the destruction of the enemy. All of these operations were supported by a complex logistical system, which involved transporting troops, equipment, supplies and reinforcements across the English Channel.
Nicely explanied
Thanks!
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours pls keep osting videos on army tactics I love these videos And I have subscribed your channel .. 🙏
Thank you
I find military strategic campaign and operational levels of war the hardest to distinguish
Strategy is what you plan to do and tactics is how you get it done
Tactics are small scale and flexible. Strategy is large scale, and irreversible. An innumerable number of tactical errors can occur within a successful strategy, but no amount of tactical success can overcome a failed strategy.
in other words: the operation was set in motion... tactics were applied to each problem... in the end, the strategy was either a success or failure. I think I got it!
Strategy is the objective, tactics is the method used to achieve the objective
Grand Strategy is the term for political straggly Strategy is once the decision to invade would be the setting the conditions tromps where when operations would be the organization of the landings tactics is the methods that the troops use to when on the battlefield
The difference between strategic and ta tactical objectives is that tactical objectives are not ends onto themselves, rather they are parts in a greater objective.
Is the emphasis of strategy on, and the function of tactics to destroy the enemy army or conquer territory?
would you say that strategy is the goal, operation is the plan, tactical is the action?
Cool
what is a good book on Land Operational Warfare.
Robert Citino's 'Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm' is a good start.
What are some books that I can read
I would specify that the entire point of the strategic level in the first place is the 'win condition.' In the Napoleonic era, the win condition was killing or capturing tens of thousands of enemy combatants in the field of battle. Doing so would immediately win you the war as your enemies would simply surrender to you. Today, the win condition is the simultaneous exercising of complete control over an entire nation, it's people, it's ideas, and subduction of it's combatants. It's both political and militaristic in nature, swaying not to either side. This is because wars are usually fought like insurgencies using guerrilla warfare nowadays. There's no decisive battle, the lack of which might no better be seen than in the 20 year long failed campaign of the United States in the middle east.
Just read Svechin...
Strategy is getting Dad to allow you to take his princess on a date. Tactic is what happens on the date.
Political strategy is geopolitics
well this is what i asked for and i did recieve, dont know how this is supposed to help get my K/D up tho.
There is an upcoming series that will discuss tactics in detail. This video is from a different series that deals with more general theory.
a good exmple is the south vs the north despite the south winning near ever battle the north won strategicly
Strategy is the recipe tactics are the ingredients. Or strategy is the blueprints of building and tactics are the tools used In construction
I'm not agree with one point. You have include politics in the Strategic level. But politics is a level himself whom influence strategy. Because the Army and war are political answer to a problem. The ultimate answer. Politics is why, strategy is how. Strategy must answer to the political question "how gain what i want". You have a good exemple in the Luddendof exemple, when strategy become the political idea of germany in WWI. And fail because if the stratégie is not limited/ controled by rhe politics, strategy will go to far.
Why do I feel like Russia would have been more successful against Ukraine if one policy maker watched this video before the war?
I think you should have separated “grand strategy” (politics and political maneuvering, including whether to go to war in the first place) from military strategy, the science of winning wars
Props to the USSR for being the first nation to make that distinction
_Strategy_ didn't exist as a word in common usage long enough to really get an established meaning, so the speaker of common English is free to use _strategy_ and _tactics_ more or less interchangeably if they so wish. See _Strategy: A History_ by Freedman. It's a book everybody should read anyway, because there's just too much that voters, soldiers, employees, and activists just don't know.
That's wrong, isn't it? The order is strategic, tactical and then operational, with decreasing time focus and scale.
There are four levels of war - you left off the geo-political.
Wha5 about *W Bush Strategery.
This is a great video but it is incorrect. 1) strategy is akin to a wish. It is what is wanted. It is the goal of the war. 2) tactics are the realistic methods for achieving the strategy. It’s a list of things that can be done. 3) operations is the hard part. Nothing happens instantly. Ops is the organization and effort. It is where the rubber hits the road, it must be designed as flexible according to changing conditions. Strategy is the target 🎯 Tactics are the arrows. Operations is the archer.
Thank you for your comment. This is a broad subject with many different interpretations. This video focused on the levels of war as a tool for historical analysis - the way a specific war can be studied by slicing it into layers. This can be somewhat different than other interpretations, but doesn't make it incorrect.
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours You got it 🍻 “incorrect” was not the right word to use, let me spiritually amend that term to be more collaborative with you. Strategy is “the past”. You can’t change it. You can re-interpret it, but it’s set, and not alterable as long as this “war” is on. So for instance, “make money in the market” is a strategy. Tactics, that’s your brainstorm of how to do it. That’s your “future”. Various things you can do. Buy this, short that, wait for this and such event, sell-half... those are tactics. Operations is you actually doing the tactics, measuring, adjusting tactics. That’s your “present”. Just to brainstorm with you 😆
@@SK-le1gm Yes I see what you mean. The way I used it in the video is much more specifically applied to the study of military history (which is what this channel is about). The main point of the video was to explain that tactics and strategies are distinct levels, that shouldn't be used interchangeably (so a 'tactically important hill', not a 'strategically important hill', for example). So our slight difference in interpretation probably comes down to the context in which we use the terms.
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours totally I can see that angle ! I don’t know much but let me elaborate to integrate that. Let’s say I have two books on my shelf: 1) how to make money in the stock market 2) how to find the love of your life These two titles are distinct *strategies* - I can let either of them rule my day tomorrow. I can always switch between them, but they are both set in stone. They’re books, already written. The author has presumably succeeded with the project they’re writing about. Anyone can read the book but they must consciously choose to do so, it won’t read itself. These two strategies don’t necessarily preclude one another but they don’t overlap (much) either. Inside each book are several clever chapters, each chapter with a different course of action that can be taken, in order to achieve the goal of the title of that book. These are *tactics.* My day, as I go about it, is *operations.* To your point: an *operational* error would be misapplying the concept in a chapter in one of these books. Say, I go out to a club, and i forget a clever opening line in the “love” book. A *tactical* error would be selecting the wrong tactic, for instance asking for a date instead of just grabbing her hand. A *strategic* error would be, failing to notice the book, going to a club without a strategy at all. Or reading a bogus book, I picked the wrong book to buy, or I don’t really care about finding love etc. Most *strategic* errors are of the sort: the person enters the club without a strategy at all. Or you start trading without having read a basic book about it, doing it in a casual manner. In other words most people don’t consciously identify their *telos* - or their actual *strategy* - when taking on a project. There is a specific word for this: it’s *desultory.* Let’s take your concept of a hill in a combat situation as another example. A tactical error: you used water balloons instead of artillery. Bad tactics. An operational error: you used artillery, but you missed, again and again. Bad ops. A strategic error: you didn’t need that hill. What were you thinking, that hill is irrelevant to defeating the enemy. In fact you should have begun peace talks, and read a book on negotiations instead of one on artillery deployment. Bad strategy.
You are clearly very passionate about this subject and I appreciate your engagement with the video. I think, as a concluding note, that this shows how broadly these ideas can be applied, and how they change depending on context, such as military history or business.
a good exmple is the south vs the north despite the south winning near ever battle the north won strategicly