Nope, I am not, and what you just printed does not even support what you daid.
I repeat once more- tactics is what you use to win battles, strategy to win wars. This is an absolutely basic piece of knowledge as discussed and assumed by all military historians and analysts- my comparison above of Wellington and Napoleon is the most famous; the tactician versus the strategist, demonstrated more clearly there than in any other period of history.
This is such basic stuff I am amazed you do not know it.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Jul 30th, 2004 at 09:24 PM
No, sorry, you are still talking crap. I dunno why you have been taught like this, but it is gibberish.
From The Columbia Guide to Standard American English:
Strategy is “the long-term plan for the war or the campaign,” and tactics (either singular or plural) are “the day-to-day schemes for the battle or the skirmish "
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
Strategy:
\Strat"e*gy\, n. [Gr. ?: cf. F. strat['e]gie. See Stratagem.]
1. The science of military command, or the science of projecting campaigns and directing great military movements; generalship.
2. The use of stratagem or artifice.
Tactics:
\Tac"tics\, n. [Gr. ?, pl., and ? (sc. ?, sing., fr. ? fit for ordering or arranging, fr. ?, ?, to put in order, to arrange: cf. F. tactique.]
1. The science and art of disposing military and naval forces in order for battle, and performing military and naval evolutions. It is divided into grand tactics, or the tactics of battles, and elementary tactics, or the tactics of instruction.
Strategy- Generalship, the art of war, management of an army or armies in a campaign, art of so moving or disposing troops or ships as to impose upon the enemy the place and time and conditions for fighting preferred by oneself
Tactics- art of deploying military forces in actual contact with the enemy
And from Captain Cyril Falls- one time Chichele Professor of the History of War, Oxford University, in his essay "The evolution of Tactics", 1964:
"The means by which soliders seek to achieve their aims in battle are called tactics... the tactician attempts to crown the efforts of the strategist, whose task it is to conduct the Campaign as a whole."
How much more do you need?
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
tactics, noun.1. the art or science of directing military or naval forces in battle; science of disposition and maneuver. 2. a method or process of doing this. 3. the operations themselves. Ex. The tactics of pretending to cross the river and of making a retreat fooled the enemy. Tactics are used to win an engagement, strategy to win a campaign or a war (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists). 4. (Figurative.) procedures to gain advantages or success; methods. Ex. When coaxing failed, she changed her tactics and began to cry. To some the obvious answer was to fight fire with fire, to reply in kind if [they] resorted to bully-boy tactics (Newsweek).
strategy, noun, pl. -gies.1. the planning and directing of military movements and operations; science or art of war. Ex. Tactics are used to win an engagement, strategy to win a campaign or a war (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists). (SYN) strategics. 2. the skillful planning and management of anything. Ex. ... the faulty strategy of idealists who have too many illusions when they face realists who have too little conscience (Reinhold Niebuhr). 3. a plan based on or involving strategy. Ex. Strategy is needed to keep the boys at work. (SYN) maneuver.
Neither of us is going to convince the other at all. You are here only to argue petely... your opinion on the subject was not asked... i asked you simply to give examples that we can talk about here so lets get back on subject. My knowledge of these subjects is sound, i do not claim to be all knowing i merely want to have people come and talk about ideals similar to the subject.
Excellent, Raven... you posted something that actually COMPLIMENTS what I said! Congrats!
(claps)
Your quote even directly says:
"Tactics are used to win an engagement, strategy to win a campaign or a war"
Exactly, what I have been saying, and in opposition as to what you have been pointing out! So thanks very much for further proving my point, as if it NEEDED any further proof after everything I just said. Tactics is NOT advanced strategy. It is not to strategy what technology is to science. It is simply about battles; strategy about wars. Every single posted source says that. You can keep denying it if you want, but anyone with an ounce of sense reading this will know how horrendously out-of-step with everything that you look.
I don't care in the slightest if my opinion was asked or not- it is VERY relevant; if you want a 'war college' then you must be able to recognise these basic terms, and if you want to talk Sun-Tzu it must be bourne in mind that he taked 90% strategy, talking little of tactics.
And for you to do all that above and then try and claim that your knowledge is 'sound' is just insultungly ridiculous. You don't know what you have been talking about, have tried to call me wrong with no evidence, and when you DID try and produce evidence it supported me and not you. Now, I am sorry if this failure irritates you, or that you do not like me pointing it out but there you go- that is a mistake you have made, and one that is very pertinent to the subject.
So I will repeat- Sun-Tzu, who wrote about strategy and not much tactics, never actually won or even fought a battle in his life and is highly overrated. His historical position as the person who wrote the earliest surviving text on strategy is appreciated; his god-like nature that he has been given by some people is not- by me, anyway.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Jul 31st, 2004 at 10:15 AM
You are trying to provoke me shows how low you are trying to go. What standing do you have at all? your interpretation of the definitions are completely wrong. Strategy is at hold on every point of a battle war and nation in a total tactics are ideals used to enhance strategy. your petty attacks will bring you nowhere here. you want me to outlash at you in attack so you can report me and try and get me banned, id not know what grievence you have with me but stop now or you will find yourself in the position you wish me. All i want is a friendly conversation where no one is wrong or right.
lol...no...actually he's a mod himself..he isn't trying to lure you into banning material.
but he's right. that IS the definiton
Strategy :
n 1: an elaborate and systematic plan of action [syn: scheme]
2: the branch of military science dealing with military command
and the planning and conduct of a war
From WordNet 2.0 :
Tactics :
n : the branch of military science dealing with detailed
maneuvers to achieve objectives set by strategy
even a mod can lure a person into those kinds of traps
so by your definition those in government are strategists while the Generals are the tacticians. The first two definitions i had were from the websters dictionary so there is definetly conflict between english majors, therefore only proving that we would actually need to speak to a professor or general... or OMG an actual expert in the military field which OMG none of us are maybe ..... we should get on subject... there isn't going to be a way to convince me otherwise and there isn't gonna be a way to convince you either so stop ruining this thread with gaggle and get on subject.
Throw some philosophy or quotes about military thinking!!! come on!!
If you think my knowledge of military ideals is wrong and im somehow inferior to your knowledge then throw something here and prove my ideas wrong with your extensive knowledge.
Strategy : \Strat"e*gy\, n. [Gr. ?: cf. F. strat['e]gie. See
Stratagem.]
1. The science of military command, or the science of
projecting campaigns and directing great military
movements; generalship.
Tactics : \Tac"tics\, n. [Gr. ?, pl., and ? (sc. ?, sing., fr. ?
fit for ordering or arranging, fr. ?, ?, to put in order, to
arrange: cf. F. tactique.]
1. The science and art of disposing military and naval forces
in order for battle, and performing military and naval
evolutions. It is divided into grand tactics, or the
tactics of battles, and elementary tactics, or the tactics
of instruction.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary !!
don't be thickheaded.
In college ... they discuss beyond literal definition higher learning...Philosophy or greater techniques on how to do things.... all you are here for is trying to give me a definition that can be interpreted like all other definitions different ways... Tactics and strategy go hand in hand one must decide thru strategy what sort of tactic one uses in dealing with the many problems of Stragem.
__________________
Last edited by RaventheOnly on Jul 31st, 2004 at 10:58 PM
you were pretty happy to provide definitions on your own to make your stand in the argument...now you actually turn it around and highlight the relativity of a definition.
we were getting to that 'higher learning' as soon as the definition issue was over.
since you guys don't like Sun tzu heres Erwin Rommel:
"THE ROUMANIAN CAMPAIGN"
SITUATION IN AUGUST, 1916
General Situation -- In 1916, as an inducement to Roumania to enter the World War against Germany, the Allied Powers offered her the territories of Bukovina (north of Moldavia) and the Transylvania-Banat region (eastern Austria-Hungary), all of which contained a large Roumanian population (Map 1). Motivated by this offer, by the favorable Allied situation, by public opinion, the sympathies of Queen Marie, and by various other contributing factors, Roumania declared war on Austria on 27 August, 1916. On the following day Germany declared war on Roumania. At this time the left of the Russian line was opposed to the Austrians and Germans in the Carpathians near the norther boundary of Roumania. The northwestern boundary of Roumania extended from the Carpathian Mountains southward and westward along the crest of the Transylvania Alps to Orsova on the Danube. From Orsova to the east the Danube River formed the southern boundary of Roumania to just west of Turtukai. From there the boundary ran southeast to the Bla ck Sea. The Central Powers had communications with Turkey through Serbia and Bulgaria. An Allied force under command of the French General Sarrail was at Salonika (northern Greece) with the mission of pushing north to cut the communications (including the Berlin-Belgrade-Constantinople-Bagdad railway) of the Central Powers with Turkey.
The Roumanian Military Situation -- The participation of Roumania in the war was necessarily bound up with the operations of the Allies, particularly as regarded Russia; in addition, Roumania was dependent on other than her own resources for a continuing supply of munitions of war. Political conditions and Allied pressure dictated the early launching of a large-scale offensive.
Since 1914, Roumania had greatly increased the size of her Army. Its combat efficiency was adversely affected by a lack of competent officers to organize and train the new units and by shortages in up- to-date equipment, which she had been unable to manufacture herself or secure from the nations at war.
Upon her entry into the war, Roumania had 20 infantry divisions (each 20,000 to 25,000 men) with 3 more forming; 2 cavalry divisions; and 5 home guard infantry brigades. The relative classification of the infantry divisions was as follows: divisions 1 to 10 (the old regular divisions), good; divisions 11 to 23, about equally divided between mediocre and poor.
The Roumanian Army had no automatic rifles, light machine guns or trench mortars; divisions 1 to 10 had 6 heavy machine guns per regiment, divisions 11 to 15, only 2 per regiment, and divisions 16 to 23, none at all. Thus although the numerical strength of the infantry battalion was 1000 to 1200 men, its fire power was actually inferior to the far smaller German battalion.
No gas equipment, offensive or defensive, was on hand. There were very few telephones, and other communication equipment was poor. Her air forces were negligible in size and she had no antiaircraft guns.
None of the units were equipped for or trained in mountain warfare.
Turtukai, Silistria, and Cernavoda, on the Danube in southwestern Dodrudja, were fortresses of considerable strength. Braila, Galatz and Bucharest were also fortified.
Terrain Features of the Theatre of Operations -- The fertile plains of Roumania (the "Plains of the Danube") lie nestled among the mountains which characterize the terrain of Bukovina, Transylvania, and, to a lesser extent, that of Dodrudja and Bulgaria. Among the crest of the Transylvanian Alps the frontier was in the shape of a great arc, with a length of about 400 miles. These mountains to between 8000 and 9000 feet, slope gradually toward the "Plains of the Danube", with long spurs extending into Roumania, while on the Transylvanian (Austro-Hungarian) side they break down very abruptly into the valleys of the Aluta (also called Olt) and Maros Rivers. This frontier mountain barrier is pierced by some fifteen passes (including that of the Iron Gate, through which flows the Danube). Through all these passes, except Vulcan Pass, ran good roads; the six passes of the center group (Predeal to Oituz) all converge on Kronstadt. Toward the north the most important pass is Ghimes Pass. In addition to the roads thr ough the passes there were a number of trails across the mountains over which troops could move, but only with considerable difficulty.
On the south, the Danube, navigable and with no permanent bridge except at Cernavoda, is a formidable obstacle, although the various islands afford facilities for assembling bridge material. The Bulgarian bank throughout commands the Roumanian bank. In Dobrudja the frontier between Bulgaria and Roumania was about 90 miles long. The best defensive line against a force advancing from Bulgaria into Dobrudja was along high ground about 10 miles south of and covering the railroad between Cernavoda and Constanza, on the Black Sea. The fortress of Silistria was connected by a pontoon bridge with the north bank of the Danube.
Railroads -- The Roumania railway system left much to be desired for use in defensive operations along the Roumanian borders or for use in offensive operations into Transylvania or Bulgaria. Because of the long spurs of the mountains extending into the "Plains of the Danube" near the northwestern frontier, few lateral rail communications existed near that border. In western Wallachia (western Roumania), rail lines approaching the Transylvania Alps and the Danube not only were few and widely separated, but also all rail communication from Bucharest to the west of the north-south line Pitesti-Zimnicea had to pass through the railroad junction at Pitesti. Between Ploesti and Pitesti six lines ran toward the northwestern frontier; one of these ran through Predeal Pass to Kronstadt and western Transylvania. Through Moldavia (northeastern Roumania) were two lines parallel to the Transylvanian frontier, with but few lines feeding toward the border. In the Danube area east of Giurgevo was but one main lateral line, Bucharest-Cernavoda (a possible lateral line was Bucharest- Ploesti-Fetesti), the Dobrudja area being mainly dependent on this line for shipments from north of the Danube. After war was declared, shipments from outside sources had to originate or pass through Russia, so that Roumania was dependent for such shipments on the railroads running from Russia and on the railroad line leading from her Black Sea port of Constanza.
In contrast to the Roumanian railway system was the compact one in Transylvania, consisting of a lateral lined forming an interior circle to the Transylvanian Alps near the border and several lines running into the interior of this circle. On the other hand, the interruption of the railroad junctions north of Czik Szerada, at Kronstadt, and at Hermanstadt would cut the rail traffic facilities of the Central Powers close to the border.
To cite a concrete instance of the general effect of the railway systems on the concentration and movement of troops along the Transylvanian border, the distance from Predeal Pass to Red Tower Pass the Roumanian railways was 270 miles as compared to 80 miles by the Transylvanian system.
Situation of the Enemy -- The enemy situation as known to the Roumanian general staff at the outbreak of war was as stated below.
On the Transylvanian frontier there were not more than 100,000 enemy troops, composed largely of five tired Austrian divisions, in poor condition, that had been sent to this area to reform and recuperate. It was believed that ultimately Roumania would have to contend with a considerable number of German divisions on the northwestern front, although the Allies stated that they hoped to hod German divisions elsewhere by continuing their offensives in the other theatres.
Concerning the souther front, it was possible that Bulgaria would declare war on Roumania shortly after the latter's entry into the war. On this front were two or three good bulgarian divisions together with four cavalry brigades and a part of one German division, in all about 90,000 men. There was a possibility that this front might be reinforced by one or two divisions from the Salonica area or from Turkey.
Situation as to Allied Military Support -- As to military support, the Allies promised the following:
Energetic action on the part of the Russians; a Russian offensive in the Carpathians was to be started without delay. Two Russian infantry divisions and one Russian cavalry division were to be sent into Dobrudja at once and more troops were to follow later, if necessary. Cooperation of the Russian Black Sea fleet. A minimum of 300 tons of munitions was to reach Roumania daily from Russia. General Sarrail in Salonica was to begin his offensive immediately upon Roumania's entry into the war.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 30th, 2004 09:18 PM
shows how low you are trying to go. What standing do you have at all? your interpretation of the definitions are completely wrong. Strategy is at hold on every point of a battle war and nation in a total tactics are ideals used to enhance strategy. your petty attacks will bring you nowhere here. you want me to outlash at you in attack so you can report me and try and get me banned, id not know what grievence you have with me but stop now or you will find yourself in the position you wish me. All i want is a friendly conversation where no one is wrong or right.
maybe ..... we should get on subject... there isn't going to be a way to convince me otherwise and there isn't gonna be a way to convince you either so stop ruining this thread with gaggle 
and get on subject. 
