Tactics and Strategy, which is which?

>>1643408
tactic specific instance
strategy unifying adoptions

>>1643408

http://www.militaryfactory.com/dictionary/military-terms-defined.asp?term_id=5118

>strategic level of war

>The level of war at which a nation, often as a member of a group of nations, determines national or multinational (alliance or coalition) strategic security objectives and guidance, and develops and uses national resources to achieve these objectives. Activities at this level establish national and multinational military objectives; sequence initiatives; define limits and assess risks for the use of military and other instruments of national power; develop global plans or theater war plans to achieve those objectives; and provide military forces and other capabilities in accordance with strategic plans. See also operational level of war; tactical level of war. (JP 3-0)

http://www.militaryfactory.com/dictionary/military-terms-defined.asp?term_id=5283

>Tactical level of war

>The level of war at which battles and engagements are planned and executed to achieve military objectives assigned to tactical units or task forces. Activities at this level focus on the ordered arrangement and maneuver of combat elements in relation to each other and to the enemy to achieve combat objectives. See also operational level of war; strategic level of war. (JP 3-0)

http://www.militaryfactory.com/dictionary/military-terms-defined.asp?term_id=3878

>Operational level of war

>The level of war at which campaigns and major operations are planned, conducted, and sustained to achieve strategic objectives within theaters or other operational areas. Activities at this level link tactics and strategy by establishing operational objectives needed to achieve the strategic objectives, sequencing events to achieve the operational objectives, initiating actions, and applying resources to bring about and sustain these events. See also strategic level of war; tactical level of war. (JP 3-0)

1/2

>>1643408
>>1643435
>And wouldn't strategy be more about placement and timing, for instance where do you maneuver your forces and when do you order the attack?

No, that's definitely tactical.

>Wouldn't tactics be something like equipment, gear, fighting style and the like?

That one's a bit tougher, as depending on how much control you have over your polity's warmaking ability, it can either be operational or strategic, or possibly even none of the above if the state has very little control over what shows up, and you're just trying to make do with what you have.

>>1643451
>>1643408


Equipment and fighting style would probably better fit into doctrine as a separate concept.

Strategy has different levels to it and encompasses more than just purely military affairs, especially grand strategy.

One scenario might be something like:

Strategic: Capture oil-producing regions to starve enemy of critical supplies and provide for our own forces.


Operational: Seize city of secondary importance along major river to anchor our forces along a defensive line to support other forces capturing said oil fields.

Tactical: Take most prominent hill within city to be used to accurately call in artillery on enemy forces.

Think of tactical as something that would happen in a single play of American football (middle linebackers blitz the 'A' gap, throw a quick flare pass for the first down).
Strategy would be along the lines of pressuring your opponent's quarterback over the course of the game.
Doctrine would be like running a wishbone offense or using a 3-4 defense.

>>1643408

Tactics is sending B squad into the first row of houses while A squad covers them and C squad are working through the back alley to make sure noone tries to escape or sneak up on you.

Strategy is sending Army Group C north to capture the port city and gain access to docks for supplies while Army Group D and F advance on the enemy and keep pushing them, with Army Group A in reserve to plug any counter attacks.

>>1643435
>>strategic level of war
>>The level of war at which a nation, often as a member of a group of nations, determines national or multinational (alliance or coalition) strategic security objectives and guidance
So strategy is determining strategic objectives. To be quite frank, this sounds like pompous military jargon and word salad.

>>1644729

It's not only determining objectives, but determining how much they're worth, and what the best way to go about securing them. You've got a Bayeux tapestry picture up in the OP; for that particular war, say, from William of Normandy's point of view, you've got a pretty simple objective:

>Become king of England.

Strategy is working out "Well how the fuck do I become king of England? Are the steps I'm taking really helping me do that? Are they worth the cost and risk?"

Which will then lead to operational details intermixed with them. To become King of England, he at the very least needs to get rid King Harold. To do that requires some projection of force onto England, which means a fleet to get him and his forces from the mainland to England. (It mixes with the operational level here, as to things like "How big of a fleet do I need to get my army over?")

But yes, the first part is determining objectives. You need to know what you want before you can begin to come up with a plan as to how to go about getting it. You have an enormously different campaign in England 1066 than you do in say, Hungary 1241 with the Mongols, who have a very different set of ideas in mind when they roll into a country.