The difference between Tactics and Strategy

Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:20 am

Heard an interesting definition of the difference between Tactics and Strategy by an American WW2 Vet, regarding Pearl Harbor. I can't quote word for word, but went something like this:

Tactically, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a huge success, destroying or disabling the entire US fleet of battleships, and suffering very little losses of their own. Strategically the attack was a disaster. US Aircraft carriers were not in port, and the battleships destroyed were almost obsolete in the new carrier based naval power, that dominates to this day. The Japanese also failed to destroy repair facilities which played a huge part in US victories later in the war, such as Midway.

The repair of the Yorktown has been referred to as the most important repair in the history of warfare. 1400 men were able to perform 3 months of repair work in just 24hrs and return the Yorktown to the pacific in time for the battle of Midway.

If these dry-docks had been destroyed that would have never been possible

The Japanese also failed to attack/destroy the submarine bases which wreaked havoc on Japanese supply for the rest of the war...

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:33 am

which leads us to the classical definitions of Strategy and Tactics. these are argued over by different scholars, and the definitions changed overtime(due to evolutions in combat, technology, etc). without getting into the thick of the scholarly arguments lets just simplify it by saying that the Strategy refers to the entire operation/war while Tactics refers to a specific battlefield.

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:38 pm

Tactics-The art of disposing armed forces in order of battle and of organizing operations, esp. during contact with an enemy.

Strategy-A plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.
The art of planning and directing overall military operations and movements in a war or battle.

See the difference