With all the threads flying around concerning command ability and strategy in war I thought it might be a good idea to start one where we can discuss the basics of strategy itself. Keep in mind I’m not claiming to be an expert, I just want to foster discussion, share my ideas, and compare them against others. I think no one knows everything and we can all learn from each other. So, in that spirit, let’s get started…

The most logical place to begin is with a definition of strategy itself, after all if we’re all talking about something different we’ll never get anywhere. Quite the conundrum isn’t it? I think it’s one of those things you think you know exactly how to define until you try. I’ve been studying strategy and military history for quite some time now and I’m not even close to an answer I like, but the closest I can come is a planned series of moves aimed at achieving a specific goal or forcing a certain result. Interestingly enough that definition doesn’t mention the military, what we often-associate strategy with, anywhere in it. I believe strategy extends beyond the military, into life, sports, and relationships, the maneuvers still apply, and with a little imagination you can start flanking and encircling your opponents in daily life as well as on a battlefield.

And now where I have the most trouble in this definition process, how do you separate strategy from tactics? Tactics, the way the Air Force explained it to me, is the art of maneuvering men, machines, and weapons systems to achieve maximum impact on an enemy and to win battles. Sounds a lot like strategy doesn’t it? So perhaps the first question to discuss is if strategy is relative to your level. What I mean is that as a general my strategy may be to take a city to crack the enemy front lines and push on into his undefended industrial regions to cause as much havoc as possible, as the colonel leading the attack on the city my strategy is to take a church to crack the will of the defenders and gain the high ground necessary to push the enemy out, as the captain leading the attack on the building my strategy is to knock out the enemy machine gun nest in the courtyard which will allow my men to advance and gain fire superiority, as the lieutenant charged with eliminating the machine gun my strategy could be to flank left to higher ground and put grenades into the emplacement on down to the fire team leaders who instruct individual men to advance and cover. To each man what the ones below him do is tactical, and he and the ones above him are operating strategically. There is another argument that strategy is the long range, large scale planning both in times of peace and war designed to produce victory and tactics is the use and deployment of troops in combat. A little simpler perhaps, but I’m not sure I like it, but for the sake of moving on and lack of anything better in my mind I’ll have to accept it for the time being, though that definition is certainly open for debate.

So, now we move on to the first real point, the qualities necessary for command. I think first and foremost for a strategic planner is the necessity to elevate yourself above the battlefield. There’s a well known military truism that no plan survives first contact with the enemy, every military genius ever has suffered the same setbacks, inadequate forces, and enemy where they didn’t expect one, an ally not living up to their commitments, or turning on you all together, troops failing to make a breakthrough, and an outright loss in battle. The trick is being able to look above the tactical situation; did you need to win this battle to win the war? Did you need that ally as bad as you’d thought? By defending as hard as they did against your attempted breakthrough has the enemy left themselves open in another point on the line? If you continually get bogged down in the tactical details of running the battle you’ll miss the strategic opportunities, you’ll get so entrenched in fighting a battle you probably couldn’t win anyway that even if you do win it’s likely to be a Pyrrhic Victory.

Don’t let your emotions color the situation. Emotional response is human nature; you can’t avoid it, that being said, be aware of it, correct for it, and work to minimize its impact. In war emotions are dangerous, fear means you’ll overestimate what your enemy can do, you’re likely to be overly cautious. Victory, and strings of victory especially, make you overestimate your own ability, you’ll be easier to bait, trick, and ambush since you’ll be so eager to add another win to the string you’ll rush headlong into fights you probably shouldn’t. Anger makes you make rash decisions, eager for a chance to strike out against a hated enemy or eager to return a punch received. While anger is a good motivator for the troops, it’s dangerous in the commanders, as a commander you need to be aware that the enemy is likely baiting you, trying to get you to act on that anger, and you’re easier to trick when you’re responding emotionally.

Fight with what you have, not with what you wish you had. Too many generals are quick to claim that if they’d only had the latest technological gizmo, newest rifle, or latest bomb. The fact is that wishing for something you don’t have, or thinking you need something you don’t have in order to win can be as much the tool of your defeat as it can be the tool of victory. During the American Vietnam War Vo Ngyun Giap was offered supply trucks from both the Soviets and the Chinese, but he turned them down in favor of the manpowered Ho Chi Minh trail. During the American bombing campaigns almost all the trucks the North Vietnamese had were destroyed, but I’m sure we all know the Ho Chi Minh trail continued to elude the Americans throughout the war despite everything from seismic sensors to SOF teams observing trail routes. This also illustrates a point I heard from a Marine Corps general. No matter what technology you come up with the enemy will eventually defeat it. Maybe with their own technology, maybe with a tactic, maybe your technology just doesn’t work the way you thought. Depending on technology or a weapons system rather than your own innovations, tactics and inventiveness is a way to ensure your defeat.

Finally the general cannot forget that the cost of wars is truly measured in blood and lives. Equipment can be replaced, territory can be retaken but your men die, become injured, sick, handicapped, and loss of personnel, especially experienced personnel, is very difficult to recover from.

So, that seems like a good enough starting place to me, feel free to comment on, agree with, disagree with, and add to anything you like and we’ll see if and where it goes from here…

Deep...

Anyhow, IMHO the difference with tactics and strategy. Is that strategy is a collection of tactics used to outsmart your "enemy". With Tactics each manuver is used in the heat of the moment, such supressing a MG nest or fortified postion with sustained fire. Strategy would be using the tactic of suppressive fire to keep the position "down" then send a unit with heavier firepower to flank the suppressed postion and nail it with grenades, rockets, machine guns or a combination of all three, and then holding that ground from enemy counter attack. To put it simply, each single move you make is a tactic, but the chain of moves you think about to use to complete your objective is strategy.


I admit that I utterly suck at large scale strategic thinking so I'll avoid commenting on such things until I learn more. Tactics, on the other hand is something I'm more comfortable with, so I'll stick around for that portion.

Does this include Dogfights and air battles?

If that's the direction we end up going with it, I sort of want to go in whatever direction conversation and interests take us, so if you have an idea, a theory, or a question you want to talk about go ahead and post it.

Ive got a thing about the next USAF strategy..

Im a little excited about the next USAF (Either 2018 OR 2030 Bomber)
The 2030 Bomber, (As the USAF visualized) will be rather a new orbital strategic attack spacecraft, rather than a bomber, integrating technology such as scramjet engines made to accelerate the bomber to mach 6 with no haste. And the bomber remains in low earth orbit for a orbital strike. And then is in re-entry for a safe landing at Edwards AFB (for example).

--Also in the article (for all Raptor Fans), the USAF May not and most likely will not meet the 340 F/A-22 Raptor Fleet, due to extensive funding and all the back up needed for such a fleet-- (Hmm...maybe this should go into Aviation news)
-----------------

But anyways, I think its about time the Military went to space..
((For such tactics))

This post has been edited by Theanalyst: Sep 8 2007, 08:35 AM

Maybe we should have this topic pinned.

This is how it was explained to me:
Strategy is essentially a plan to meet an objective, be it finishing a homework assignment, scoring a touchdown, meeting a business milestone, or winning a war.
Tactics are actions or sequences of actions executed to meet your strategic intent.

Your analogy of the actions of your subordinates being Tactics to your Strategy is a good on. Commander may have a strategy to win the war, and his tactics will involve deployment of units. Those unit leaders will have their own strategy to win a battle, involving individual flying tactics.

Analyst - Look up AF Space Command or USSPACECOM on Wikipedia. Space has been integral to military strategy for quite some time. Just because we don't station weapons (not to be confused with weapon systems) in space, doesn't mean the military is not in space.
Another thing to consider about weapons in space is cost-effectiveness. Is it worth the extraordinary expenditure to make an aircraft to accomodate these special engines, and the fuel to get it up there, only for it to do the the same thing a B-1 or a B-2 could do.


Justin
§

This post has been edited by SilverHawk7: Sep 10 2007, 09:48 AM

www.airforcesmonthly.com

Article on Old Planes, New Challenges
In current issue

Say you have a large military invading your country (e.g. Battle of Thermopylae) and only a small ground force defending (e.g. 300) at 300 to 1* in manpower and no natural defenses(e.g. Narrow Mtn. Passes), air support, artillery, etc. How do you defend?

Personally, I'd do the following:

1. Attempt to halt the advance by destroying bridges.

2. Take up positions on high ground and hold.

3. Kill as many enemies as posssible.

*300,000 divided by 1000

I don't, this is a bad place to engage. No natural defenses equals no high ground, thus no passes, keep close enough to be a threat, keep the enemy advancing, attack only when it's in your interests to do so. Classic Fabian tactics, make it so costly for your enemy to wage the war. By taking a guerrillia approach to the war it also becomes harder for your enemy to win, after all a conventional army loses if it doesn't win, a guerrillia army wins if it doesn't lose. You have several advantages the Greeks wouldn't have. First off you're fighting on your ground, you know the terrain, language, and can blend into the population when you're not actively engaged. Unlike the Persians the invading forces in modern day can't burn your country to the ground, they can't make your population slaves, and if the invading forces hit you with that sort of superiority we're looking at a Gulf War I situation, so you're likely to have a large portion of international support behind you, if you can hold out long enough you'll likely get a good portion of world support to help you.

The Future Senario... This is what I would do:

Part 1


-Train or Hire Hackers to start and or corrupt the enemy in a web war. Once victorius, I move on to phase 2

-Now with the enemy hacked completely, sending propaganda and political bashing announcements over the radio and speakers of the enemys speakers, radios and COM systems

-Send SAP (Satellite Attack Units) to destroy the communication and vital data support satellites
-If I were messing with China, and there handy ASAT missile bases, I would send in decimation teams via UCV (Unmanned Cargo Vehicles) The decimation teams are basically the future special forces, implying all the updated tech in there armor.

*There is stiff resistance at the bases and the Decimation teams need support
-I would call in for mach bombers loaded with the future SDBs and destroy the bunkers and installations defending the sites.
-The decimation teams would move in to destroy them
-As that was initiated, The explosions would read "FLAW" ((Due to the Hacked Systems and eqippment))

*There is an attack on one of the bases stationed near the enemy country. This would cause a state of war. ((That has happened physically and can be seen by the average human)) And a full fleged assault is activated

-I would TAC-nuke the enemy countries capital using the Decimation teams that were stationed and scattared already throughout the country

-"Remove the Borders" Attack. An Orbital Strike basically encircling the countries borders. Now causing difficulty for country to invade neighboring country.

*The Enemy has launched Missile Shuttles into orbit and are destroying the SAP platforms
-I would use planetary installations spread through out the homeland. (Lasers, Missiles, Railguns) would destroy the small group of ships

-Back to the ground fighting
*The enemys last defense is army.. now hiding in bunkers and deep undergorund shelters.

-To simply go and glass the country. With a mix of high intensity lasers and nukes. Leaving nothing but glass on the surface and leaving the enemy open if to come out

-Then the assault would begin.
-Dropships go in and start the long skirmishes underground in the giant complexity of tunnels

Due to the propaganda. The enemy "civilians" would consider us heroes due to the psychological change of mind.

----
SUCCESS
----

What do you think?

Not defending is not an option in my strategy book. Defending for even a day can mean the difference between having readied defenses and overrun ones.

Geurilla warfare and/or Setting Ambushes/Booby Traps in that scenario could work, but you should still hold some in reserve in case you need a time-buying diversion assault or a second string of geurillas.



Next Scenario: This time you're on the offense, but terrain limits you to a beachhead one tenth the size you need and your inland movement capabilities stand at 10%. Also, you have only four options. what do you do.

Option A: Abort Operation

Option B: Increase the No. of Paratroops and Air Supply drops to cut down on traffic jam on the beach.

Option C: Keep the Para:Landing Force Ratio balanced and continue.

Option D: Invade by Land

This post has been edited by Lord of the Aces: Oct 9 2007, 03:06 PM

Yes, the first 24 hours of the invasion are the ones that will tip the balance for either side.

As for my invasion plan, rule no. 1: If your options are limited, make new options (no I'm not sticking to the options provided. No point in playing fair if that's just going to throw it to the enemy).

I would recon the invasion site beforehand, discover all the limitations mentioned, and promptly go looking for a more suitable invasion site in the enemy's rear area. I would use the original beachhead and airborne operation for a well-equipped diversion (as big as the terrain would support), while my main force landed in the enemy rear and started kicking ass, in concert with a breakout by the diversionary force.

Strategic warfare rarely encompasses any area smaller than an entire theater of operations. The landing operation as you specify it would still be considered as a tactical scenario. The strategic part would be coordinating it with the main landing. A land invasion could also be used in place of the main landing or in concert with the two landings.

This post has been edited by Spartan 120: Oct 9 2007, 06:22 PM

Option C:

The lack of land mass will help you. You can cut your invading forces necessary this way and still have plenty of man power to over-run and capture the beachhead.

If you loose people by numbers it wouldn't be as devastating as it would be for the hostiles. You also have a chance at running a constantly even flow of all necessary men, ammo, guns, artillery, ordinance or anything else needed to achieve victory because your manpower is actually more than double what is needed to take the beach.

Call in the airstrike if you can to clear people and weapons out for the assault. You may or maynot want to request some mixed ordinance being used in the airstrike depending on what you are facing.

After that, it's up to the men, their utilization of their training and expertise and other variables you can't compute as a human being.

Not defending is always an option, sacrificing men in the face of an enemy who obviously already outnumbers you in a battle you obviously can't win is not a strategy it's the height of foolishness. Being outnumbered 300 to 1 means that even if your average infantryman hit an enemy and killed him with one shot for every shot of ammunition he carries you still can't kill them all. That doesn't even address the fact that your average infantryman will be lucky to hit and kill one enemy in one magazine, not to mention the factor of incoming return fire keeping them pinned. Retreating to maintain combat forces and give yourself time is a timeless tactic, ask the Russians, even Napoleon said "I can always recover space, what I can't recover is time" (that's not a word for word quote, I can't remember it word for word and I don't have time to look it up, but the general idea is there). The fact is in that situation your forces would be little more than a speed bump, you'd slow the enemy down for an hour at the most, not a day. Or more realistically with no terrain or natural obstacles to slow them down they'd bypass you all togeather, encircle you and keep on going, any realistic option is that the enemy wins and you've needlessly sacrificed 300 men.

As for the second option, abort the operation. You're walking, or sailing as the case seems to be, into a Thermopylae. No matter how many men you can land, being able to put only 1/10th the men you need on the shore at a time is going to be a shooting gallery for enemy forces (though you've neglected to tell us if we're facing a superior or inferior number of enemy forces which might help with this decision). Finally relying on increased airborne forces makes little sense, even in Operation Overlord, which I'm assuming you're drawing on here, the airborne units never actually broke through to the beaches, they mainly harassed German artillery and siezed the areas needed for the troops once they broke out of the beaches, and areas the German reinforcements would need to pass through to reach the beaches. Even there the Allies were prepared to abort if the weather made beach landings impossible. Then again, we're assuming you even have additional airborne qualified soldiers to commit to the operation, and what about air support? What's the navy giving you? Using the Normandy beach landings again it'd play out quite differently using today's technology. While those assault craft are inbound I'll have fighters flying in with LGBs, bunkers and main points of resistance are no longer a factor and airborne soldiers tying up reinforcements allows me to get my forces off the beach. But that brings up another factor, is the beach good enough to get my equipment off fast enough? If it's too soft to support my heavy vehicles and I try to land them anyway they get stuck and now nothing is coming through that beach till they get removed.

Really there's too many variables for just 4 choices, but given the information and choices you've given, I'm aborting, sounds like I'm sailing my men into a needless slaughter.

Aborting or Postponing would be a good idea.

It's always best to wait for Foward Air Strikes to kill off any second wave and/or some of the main force you may encounter. That way you can take your time off-loading supplies and men.

My Final Scenario:

The Final Battle, you have all of your forces centered on this city, ready to pressure the defenders until they break. You also have some problems, Your nearest CAS and Landing groups are blocked by the remnants of thier Navy and Naval Air Force. What do you do?

A: Postpone operation until land based Air support can move in closer to the city.

B: Use NAF to sink thier fleet and destroy or hold off thier NAF.

C: Postpone all Assault ops to wait for AF to arrive and NAF to sink thier fleet and use a "Pincer" assault.

D: Risk million of lives and go for a ground assault with no Air Cover or Naval Landing .

E: Bomb them into submission

F: Cut off all supply flow into city.

G: Offer surrender terms

H: Pick what you think is best using above list.

This post has been edited by Lord of the Aces: Oct 13 2007, 09:20 AM

I'd go with option H: Offer terms for their surrender.

I've edited my option to include offering surrender terms.

E, Bomb into submission.

I go for H: Cut off all supply line into the city