What is the difference between strategy and tactics?

Answer 1

There have been numerous efforts to differentiate tactic and strategy when discussing military operations. Military analysts use these terms and others when describing different types of operations. There are several answers concerning this and one idea is that a governments policy determines what military strategy must be used to advance that policy. For instance, if one nation wishes to take territory from another one, this becomes a "policy". The military arm of this government decides what the best strategy is required to execute the policy. The strategy, for arguments sake, might be using air power to accomplish this as the enemy has no air power or none to match the opposing air power of the aggressor.Once this strategy is decided upon, the next step is to develop air "tactics" to implement the strategy. The tactics are used within the general strategy that is given birth by the policy.

Air tactics may be to bomb all the enemy's airfields and strong army positions in the territory that policy states it wants to control.

Therein lies the difference many military leaders will profess to describe the difference.

Now the ideas written above may apply to any era in human warfare. In a more specific way, the US Army has its own particular method of approaching this issue.

Both strategy and tactics deal with both defense and offensive. Based on this, the US Army begins the definition process by taking the viewpoint that the main problem to overcome is the more powerful of the two, which is "defense". This, as an aside, is what dominated the US Civil War.

Moving on, the US Army recognizes the following principles, which hinge upon the idea that the United States' military must carry out the following principles to reach the nation's objectives.

* The principle of the offense points out that defense alone cannot by itself accomplish success in war. Victory ultimately depends on successful offensive operations.

* The principle of simplicity emphasizes the difficulty of executing overly complicated plans and, for this reason, the defender as well as the attacker should keep plans as simple as possible.

*note one:

In the Union's Atlanta campaign, the three US armies needed offensive and then used defense against any expected enemy counterattack. Sherman, as an example expected a counter attack once he occupied Atlanta.

* The principle of maneuver solidifies the absolute essential role of mobility in military operations. In the US Civil War, this was a battle tactic to turn on the enemy's flank or rear to win the battle. On the other hand, the overpowered force required mobility to retreat and avoid destruction of their army.

* The principle of unity of command stresses the requirement of all forces to cooperate for the successful accomplishment of the "strategy" of the overall policy. In the US Civil War, the Atlanta campaign, kept the South's Army of the Tennessee from reinforcing Lee's operations against Grant in Virginia. Communications between Grant and Sherman were therefore vital.

* The principle of surprise points out the value of performing the unexpected. Here the First Battle of Bull Run displays the value of the tactic of "interior lines" used by Johnston to hop on the railroad bringing troops to aid Beauregard in defeating McDowell. This tactic prevented the capture of the Union's strategy of controlling the railhead at Manassas, and then marching on to Richmond. Also, it was the tactic of surprise that almost won the first day at Shiloh. Only the reinforcements of Buell saved Grant from defeat. To follow up on this, the surprise tactic yields two benefits for the attacker. One is psychological, causing panic and into hasty decisions. In reverse, the attackers are emboldened and more confident soldiers.

* The principle of security needed to avoid being caught by surprise. At Shiloh, the Confederates found no entrenchment which should have been instantly built upon getting to Pittsburg Landing.

So far the principals of strategy and tactics are simply the use of common sense.

Feeding on the commonsense vehicles comes two more that compliment them. They clearly are tactics either formed during a battle or planned for if the battle allows for them.

* The principle of Economy of Force. Robert E. Lee was successful in Virginia versus Grant at Cold Harbor for example. There a smaller defense wrecked the assaults mounted by Grant against strong fortifications. And, also to tactically not to overuse unnecessary force to reach an objective in battle. Again at Cold Harbor the Confederates were successful on a 5 to 1 basis. Clearly having more Confederate troops there was not necessary for that time and place.

* The Principle of mass or concentration. This is Napoleonic era tactics. It has been used for ages.

So using a mass of troops vs the enemy's weakest link on the battle field. Speed is essential lest th enemy creates a tactic of counterattack on the lines of the attacker that are now weak because of a failed mass on a flank.

As an aside, writers from Clausewitz to Liddell have devoted different approaches to ensure the concentration is adequate and finds the weakest point to attack.

Answer 2

Strategy means 'a global plan to reach a long-term goal,' and is taken from a Greek word that means "army leadership".

Tactics, on the other hand, means a short term plan or behavior and comes from a Greek word that means "science of arrangement" (of an army). One uses tactics (little tricks) in a strategy (long-term plan). Interesting note: both concept have their origin in warfare terminology, this stresses that business is seen by many as a war between competitors.

Answer 3

Strategy: careful planning

Tactics: the use of strategy