Talk:Military strategy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

As a reaction to her WWI experience, France entered World War II with a purely defensive doctrine, epitomised by the "impregnable" Maginot Line, and were routed by the revolutionary German offensive Blitzkrieg.

Didn't France's loss have more to do with an inability to adequately control logistics (or prepare, but really its the same thing) rather than strategy? They outnumbered Germany on almost every level of war material, but still lost horribly. Stargoat 21:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was trying to make the point that France entered WWI with an offensive strategy and entered WWII with a defensive strategy and in both cases technology and tactics had made their strategy of choice ineffective. But, as you say, perhaps I shouldn't be claiming their defeat was due to their defensive outlook. Maybe ending the above sentence at the "Maginot Line" and leaving out the stuff about "Blitzkrieg" would do.
And if you've got a better title for the first section, feel free to change it. "Relationships of military strategy" sucks but I wanted a section explaining how it fits with tactics, logistics, grand strategy, diplomacy, technology, etc. Geoff/Gsl 00:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] strategy or its lack of use

I'm not entirely sure that the claim of a lack of strategy on the western front is correct. A lack of manuever doesn't necessarily imply a lack of strategy (despite what Hart might think :P ). I'm going to see if I can reword some of this to a more pleasing form. Stargoat 15:28, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Another point is that there is a difference between no strategy and a bad strategy.

Roadrunner 16:37, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Development of Stategy

Do you think this might need its own article? Stargoat 16:32, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] stratagem

Should we add something about a stratagem as being an execution of a strategic campaign to achieve a strategic goal? (Okay, I admit it, that sentence made my brain hurt.) I'm not sure about the best way to accomplish that. Anyone have any thoughts? Stargoat 17:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Sun Tzu

This article betrays a marked Western and modern bias. Military strategy was carefully studied by the Chinese before and most definetely after Sun Tzu 's Art of War. The Art of War is still considered a classic book of military strategy today!

I also find it remarkably innocent that it is considered early empires, such as the Romans, did not use and develop military strategy. ChrisG 22:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Military strategy and military tactics are two different things. Sun Tzu's Art of War has little to nothing to do with the actual running of an army. It has some very generalized advice on manuever and the seperation of the military from the political, but little else. The reason why the Five Rings, The Art of War, and the Conquest of Gaul are so popular is because they are easy to understand, amateur works.
Although the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and others knew of military strategy, they did not study it in a fashion similiar to the intense degree that war colleges of the last three hundred years have. The best comparison would be merchant movement of goods. Simply because trade took place, it does not follow that the workings of the economy and capitalism were understood. Stargoat 00:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My idea is that the current content of the article regards tactics. Sun Tzu speaks about something different. One example regards intelligence, that Sun-tzu considers very important while here is not enough considered. Moreover diplomacy and logistic should be considered in strategy. But the strategy teaches that the most important battle is not on the battlefield.--Truman Burbank 16:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Strategy and Tactics

"Military strategy in the Waterloo campaign" should read "Military tactics at the Waterloo battle." Strategy is much higher level than tactics.

this article needs ww2 strategy!

I hope you'll forgive me just adding another perspective than what seemed a very British orientated view of Strategy. Have just stuck to one section and added what i believe is a balancing view from German view point. Wasn't just Guderian but he was a very able developer of the central doctrinal approaches agreed by the General Staff. Not sure the Panzer Corps was his at time of France ?

Not very much on roman/ancient strategy

No mention of development of General Staffs after Napoleon by the Prussians, and then others, to develop doctrine and strategy.

Not much talk of guerilla strategies here (South Afria 1890's, Malaysia, Vietnam/Indochine, Algeria, Israel, Cuba, US Rebellion against Britain, Ireland, Finland)

Even when Napoleon made his name at head of 'Army of Italy' his armies lived off the land. So later reference to living off the land may be capable of creating false impression.

Not much here on important role of Fred the Great who was much studied and quoted by Napoleon on Strategy.

Not much here on standard Napoleonic battle plan and its implications for tactics in his army.

Happy to add but would like comments. Facius 17:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The current definition (US JOINT) of Strategy: The art and science of developing and employing instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multinational objectives. I added the bold.

For comparison here is the current definition (US JOINT) of Tactics: The employment and ordered arrangement of forces in relation to each other. See also procedures; techniques.

You can see this is in keeping with Clausewitz's definition but has been more clearly seperated from tactics by the "National Interests" and the "forces". Strategy deals with the political aspects and the general response to them while tactics deals with the actual execution of warfare at army, corps, division, brigade, battalion, company, platoon, squad or the individual level.

With this in mind WWII strategy would encompass such subjects as the German use of U-Boats to interdict the logistics flow on the Atlantic, The German decision to defend the coastline or to invade the Caucasus. Likewise the Allied decision to invade Sicily then Italy rather than "Fortress Europe". The instant you go beyond the political decisions and begin to discuss the actual execution of these events you are into tactics.

A good link to Clausewitz if you would like to clarify or investigate on your own. http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/CWZBASE.htm paratrooper


It was mentioned vaguely above; but the distinction between strategy and tactics here seems to be confused. "Strategy and tactics are closely related. Both deal with distance, time and force but strategy is large scale while tactics are small scale" - this is vague, and the opening line to this section should really spell out the difference clearly...
Tactics describes the plans and arrangement of forces to defeat another.
Strategy is about how to translate military force into a political goal. Indeed, the Clausewitz quote of the definition of strategy should read more like "strategy is the use of force to achieve political ends" (I do not have the exact quote in front of me).
So tactics is about how to win a battle. Strategy is about how to translate military force - winning on the battlefield - into a political goal. This comment has been mentioned already; but the article seems to remain confused about the distinction - I may change this; I thought I would seek out other opinion on the matter first Mattimeus 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Found the Clausewitz distinction: “tactics teaches the use of armed forces in the engagement; strategy, the use of engagements for the object of war" (pp.128 Clausewitz, On War, 1976 translation) - bearing in mind, Clausewitz defines war as the extension of politics, when he says "for the object of war" - he means achieving political goals Mattimeus 11:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gengis Kahn

We need something on Gengis Kahn, seriously. Cameron Nedland 02:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the section on Khan and the Mongols to make it more readable. I'm not entirely sure of it's historical accuracy, but the language used was very juvenile. If there's incorrect facts, please fix them. I only adjusted the style of writing. -Caligari_87

The facts should be accurate, I got that information largly from the History Channel. By the way I'm a juvenile, so I have an excuse. Cameron Nedland 02:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone add something about military strategies against terrorism? -Shevotniy

[edit] Principles of military strategy

This AfD for the above article has closed with a request that it be merged into this article. Babajobu 02:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

I see the word 'manœuver' which looks like a hybrid of American/Canadian maneuver and Commonwealth 'manœuvre'. What spelling should we use?Cameron Nedland 16:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Just one question

Is it considered that Frontal attack is a bad or good tactic to win a war? Thank you in advanced.--Tones benefit 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no "good" or "bad" way to win a battle, let alone a war. It all depends on the circumstances. JurSchagen 11:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There are far too many other variables to consider before anyone could give you a good answer.Cameron Nedland 20:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion of Norway

The article states britain was removed from norway. however i firmly believe no british troops were deployed. please correct this or use a citation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.255.21 (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

From http://www.magweb.com/sample/sconflic/co03wesc.htm

"After a long and arduous campaign the Allied Expeditionary Force succeeded in capturing Narvik on May 28. In addition to all the difficulties the Allies had encountered, a new and desperate problem had arisen: France, which had been invaded on May 10, was already near collapse. Since Allied troops were required in what was deemed a more important theater, Norway was relegated to the category of a secondary campaign by the Supreme Allied War Council.

Therefore, the British War Cabinet decided to evacuate all troops from Norway even before the final attack on Narvik. Before the Norwegian campaign was abandoned, however, it was decided to take Narvik, destroy the port facilities and disrupt as much of the rail line running to Sweden as time allowed; after this was accomplished all Allied troops would be evacuated. Once Narvik was taken and the vital ore carrying and handling facilities were destroyed, it was estimated that the Germans would be unable to use the port for a year.

This was small compensation for having lost Norway, but the recapture of Narvik was utilized for propaganda purposes by the Allies, who were in desperate need of a victory to bolster fading morale.

Narvik was evacuated in two stages. Between dune 4 and 6, 15,000 troops were embarked and brought back to England on a fleet of transports; on June 7 and 8 the remaining Allied forces, numbering 10,000 men, were evacuated. Except for scattered Norwegian resistance, the departure of the last transport from Harstad on June 8 left Norway completely in German hands. The one bright spot during the evacuation was that all Allied troops were brought back to England without loss. "

JurSchagen (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect assessment concerning modern strategy

It is stated in the article that, re: asymmetric warfare "This has led to large amounts of damage to non-targeted people and assets which undermines the attackers and is often used to bolster political support for the guerrillas and destabilize the politics of the attacker." I believe this is historically invalid and simply goes against the great trend away from large civilian casualties in more-modern war. The precision of military technology combined with operational constraints placed upon the combatants from the home command, for political reasons, has actually led to a dramatic reduction in "collateral damage". Gone are the days of massive carpet-bombing, or indiscriminate reprisals. The problem of occupation by a technologically and systematically superior force is not in the actual damage inflicted upon the general populace, but in the politically untenable position of foreign invaders, who either by misfortune, chance or incompetency suffer increasingly hostile reactions in a prolonged scenario. I will be taking this assessment out of the article, and more clearly stating the socio-political difficulties with asymmetric warfare, removed from any notion of extensive collateral damage. PRSturm (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Japanese strategy

Obviously many American's feel that Pearl Harbor was a cheap shot on Japan's part, and myself, as an Australian whose parents and grandparents fought against the Japanese, feel this way too. But the Japanese strategy section is out of whack. The phrase "the USA wouldn't negotiate with an enemy that had back stabbed them in this way," is not a encyclopedic statement. I'm changing it to, "the USA wouldn't negotiate with an enemy that had struck them this way." The Bryce (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet strategy

Four points:

i) the usual way of referring to the repression of party cadres, officials and officers during the Soviet 30's is purging' and not cleasing. While cleasing may be a "better" translation of the original Russian it does embrace the executioner's view of the purged human material as filth and ought to be avoided in an non-POV context, and

ii) the concept that the purges had weakened the army is a modern interpretation and not what the decision makers thought at the time and would be an inaccurate representation of the Soviet government's opinion since it considered the purges to have strengthened the army, and

iii) while the Winter War may have shown that the Soviet army was unfit for serious war (or not) it was not confirmation of the Soviet government's opinion that it such. If that had been the view of the Soviet government it wouldn't have started the war, and

iv) just before Barbarossa Stalin declared in a speech at a military academy that the Soviet army was the most modern army, which implies a completely different attitude to it.


I intend to edit the article accordingly.


Did some minor language fixes too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.146.131 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)