vvizard NOR
   |
Posted - 2009.02.15 23:02:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Aydjile
can you please explain why they called "strategic" and not "tactical"?
here wiki -
Military tactics (Greek: Taktikē, the art of organizing an army) are the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle. Changes in philosophy and technology over time have been reflected in changes to military tactics.
and here too -
strategy is a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.
Strategy is profoundly different from tactics. In military terms, tactics is concerned with the conduct of an engagement while strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked. In other words, how a battle is fought is a matter of tactics: whether it should be fought at all is a matter of strategy.
Strategy is relevant to many areas of life, from getting the right date for the school disco to running a business. For example, the goal of a company may be to increase profits: the strategy chosen might be to undertake an advertising campaign; invest in a new computer system; or adjust pricing.
From my experience (some years in active military duty) I tend to sum up the whole strategic/tactical discussion like this, when trying to explain military strategy/tactics to other people in the military:
"Strategic decisions are long-term decisions, taken by generals or politicians, and might change the outcome of a war. Tactical decisions are short-term decisions taken by various brigade, battalion, company, platoon and squad leaders (or by the private rifleman himself), and might change weather you and the guys next to you survive this battle or not.
Deciding what toys (hardware) you send into war is a strategic decision. Deciding how you actually use them during battle is a tactical decision for commanders lower on the food chain.
I would simply say that T3 cruisers can be said to have a "strategic" effect if one alliance is able to produce them on a much larger scale than their opponents, and in turn give that alliance a weapon the enemy cant find an effective counter against.
On the other hand, they could have a "tactical effect" by being warped into the middle of a battle, and securing a victory for one of the sides, because the opposing force wasn't prepared to fight against them.
Which one it will be, only time will tell I guess.
My perception of strategy vs. tactical decisions is a "dumbed down" version I've just found easy for people to grasp. Military experts are calling this a "grunt explanation".
|