What, exactly do "tactical" and "strategic" mean, in military usage?

[Senegoid]

From the nearby thread on the Cuban Missile Crisis what-ifs:

@Stranger_On_A_Train

I don’t have anything substantive add to the excellent summary by Gray Ghost except that according to McNamara, in an exchange he had with Fidel Castro at the 1991 Ibero-American summit, the latter admitted that has the US attemtped an invasion of Cuba he would have requested the Soviet use of tactical nuclear weapons in defense. Most scenarios of the use of tactical nukes in this context typically lead to some degree of strategic exchange as well, and in fact, most ‘unrestricted’ simulations of nuclear warfare end up with a full-up exchange of weapons out of fear that delaying response will mean losing the ability to respond, e.g. being subject to a counterforce attack.

What, exactly, do the terms “tactical” and “strategic” mean in this sort of military usage?

I’ve tried to search for explanations from time to time, but my search-fu is weak on this, and most of what I can find simply discusses the generic meanings of these words. I’m looking for some explanation a little more specific, or detailed, perhaps with some examples and context. Anybody?

(Was McNamara’s “exchange” with Castro at the Ibero-American summit tactical or strategic? )

[Mr.Miskatonic]

Tactical means the methods you use to deal with more immediate threats, strategy is broader and meant to cover the overall plan. i.e. Soldiers use tactics to take out the enemy in a building, while the strategy is to capture the entire city.

So tactical nukes would be aimed at US ships aiding the invasion of Cuba, while Strategic would attack our ciites, our missiles, our military bases, etc.

[Shagnasty]

To keep things simple, tactical nukes are typically smaller yield nuclear weapons that can be used like overgrown versions of conventional weapons. Used in that capacity, they can destroy targeted facilities like military bases or factories the same way that you could with a large number of conventional weapons. They exist but have never been used in war partly because it is really difficult to draw a hard line between them and strategic nuclear weapons described below.

Referring to strategic nukes suggests an entire offensive/defensive plan for nuclear war. In practice, it usually refers to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD doctrine) in which even a single launch of a larger nuclear weapon by another country would set a pre-determined war plan in motion that would ultimately result in a full-scale nuclear war that destroys both sides.

In general, strategy refers to the larger war plan, tactics describe the specific steps you use to achieve those goals and logistics refers to how you allocate resources to achieve the specific steps.

[Ravenman]

The out-of-date Army Field Manual 100-5 has a succinct summary to address the levels of war that don’t specifically relate to two types of nuclear weapons:

Fundamental to the Army’s doctrine is an appreciation of the levels of war tactical, operational, and strategic—that define the entire range of military operations and the links between tactical actions and strategic objectives. The levels of war are defined more by the consequences of their outcome than they are by the echelon of involvement, although, as a general rule, the higher the echelon, the higher the level of war.

The levels of war apply not only to war but also to operations other than war. The strategic perspectives are worldwide and long-range. Strategy is concerned with national or, in specific cases, alliance or coalition objectives. The operational level provides the vital link between strategic objectives and tactical employment of forces. At the operational level, military forces attain strategic objectives through the design, organization, and conduct of campaigns and major opera- tions. Tactical battles and engagements are fought to achieve operational results.

The tactical level of war is concerned with the execution of battles and engagements. On the battlefield, the primary focus of the tactical commander is winning battles and engagements in which he executes maneuvers and fires to achieve a specific objective. Tactical-level commanders are moved in and out of battles and engagements by higher commanders. Successes and failures at the tactical level, as viewed by the operational-level commander, set the conditions for operational maneuver.

So in short, the strategic level of war deals with national policy. The tactical level of war deals with battlefield events. The operational level of war links the two other levels.

[Northern_Piper]

Mao’s definition of guerrilla warfare helps to explain the difference:

“The strategy is one soldier against ten.”

“The tactic is ten soldiers against one.”

[Senegoid]

Thanks, guys. I vaguely recall asking this question once before, and not getting answers that I thought were clear. The above posts, however, seem pretty clear.

[SHARKBITEATTACK]

Here’s some info on the tactical nuke that was developed by the US during the cold war. Davy Crockett (nuclear device) - Wikipedia
During the CMC the Soviet submarines also had nuclear torpedos

Personally, I always thought of strategic targets (and I may be wrong) as unarmed targets that aid in the effectiveness of the opponents military. So for example, bridges, communications, powerplants, fuel depots etc.

As for tactical targets, I think of things that are ON the battlefield. For example, if your a ground force unit, what is the next enemy obstacle obstacle you must overcome to keep pushing forward? This would be things like gun emplacements, fortified buildings or a tank.

[JRDelirious]

Now that the GQ has been dealt with…

A “joke” from 1980’s Europe, Nuclear Freeze campaign era:

Q: What is a tactical nuclear warhead?
A: One that explodes in one of the Germanys

[LSLGuy]

As said above, the distinction with nukes gets rather nebulous and theoretical.

For more prosaic combat we thought of it as the difference between actions effecting the progress of the war immediately or nearly so, versus those that have only a long term effect. So in a non-nuclear context attacks on enemy military forces and logistics are tactical, whereas bombing their munitions plants and cities is strategic.

[Velocity]

Oversimplified, but basically:

Tactical = against tanks, warships, troops, the battlefield, etc.

Strategic = against distant cities, factories, targets far from the battlefield, etc.

[bump]

@Ravenman

The out-of-date Army Field Manual 100-5 has a succinct summary to address the levels of war that don’t specifically relate to two types of nuclear weapons:

So in short, the strategic level of war deals with national policy. The tactical level of war deals with battlefield events. The operational level of war links the two other levels.

In say… World War 2 terms, the strategic level was deciding to concentrate on Germany first, and that they’d go about it via strategic bombing (i.e. bombing German factories and cities), and via a strategy of attacking across N. Africa and up through Southern Europe/Italy (Churchill’s “soft underbelly”) followed up by an invasion of France.

The Operational level was more where Ike, Montgomery, etc… were, down to about divisional level. Below that, and it was tactics- how to defeat the enemy that you’re actually to grips with.

Things like the Battle of the Bulge, D-Day, and the Stalingrad offensive (German Operation Blue) were “strategic offensives”, in that they were very large scale offensives meant to support or force some strategic issue. There was a lot of operational level maneuver going on, and thousands of tactical-level fights as well.

Put another way… the decision to bomb German cities was a strategic one. What targets, when, and with what bombers was more operational. The actual missions themselves were tactical- what formations, what armament, etc…

[AdamF]

Specifically when talking about nuclear weapons, there are two distinctions.

1: Strategic weapons are covered by the various treaties, and tactical nukes are not.

2: Command authority. Strategic weapons are launched by a command from the highest level. Targets are set a long time in advance and (usually) cannot be changed by whoever is actually physically launching the weapon. The use of tactical nukes would authorized by the highest level, but the actual decision and choice of target would be up to some field commander.

[Ranger_Jeff]

Tactical - destroying the ammunition dump that supplies the unit directly opposing your unit.
Strategic - destroying the munitions factory that supplies that ammunition dump and many others.

Tactical - destroying an enemy fuel truck or depot.
Strategic - destroying an enemy oil field or refinery.

Tactical - destroying an enemy transportation, ordnance, or aviation repair facility.
Strategic - destroying an enemy ball bearing factory.

Tactical - destroying an enemy unit’s electrical generator
Strategic - destroying a dam (hydroelectric) that supplies power for a city that contains an arms factory complex.

Tactical is the “little picture”. Strategic is the “BIG PICTURE”.

[bucketybuck]

Tactical - What you’re doing
Strategic - Why you’re doing it

[KneadToKnow]

@Ranger_Jeff

Tactical is the “little picture”. Strategic is the “BIG PICTURE”.

Or, as I heard it put once:

If you bring a girl flowers when you pick her up for your date, that’s tactics. Sending her flowers at work the day before is strategy.

[TokyoBayer]

For the question posed in the OP concerning strategic versus tactical nuclear weapons, the usage comes directly from various types of bombing in WWII. It was decided by the British to pursue a sustained bombing campaign which was hoped could help win the war by itself through aerial attacks on harbors, railways, cities, housing and industrial districts. The USAAF later joined after the US entered the war.

Prior to D-Day, all Allied air forces, including the strategic bombers, were placed under Eisenhower and these forces when were used for tactical missions to support the Normandy landings.

In the Pacific theater, the USAAF strategic bombing, including the atomic bombs, was a major contribution to Japan’s decision to surrender without an invasion of the main islands.

Had Japan not surrendered, the US intended to use more atomic bombs both in a strategic role by dropping them on other cities and also tactically by dropping them on the Japanese defenses where the US was planning on invading.

I found this account of the exchange with McNamara and a Soviet general.

The presence of the Soviet tactical missiles in Cuba was a secret for three decades. A Soviet general revealed their existence at a conference in Havana in 1992 marking the thirtieth anniversary of the missile crisis. Among the conference participants was former secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. Upon hearing the Soviet general’s admission, he “had to hold on to a table to steady himself.’’

[bump]

@Ranger_Jeff

Tactical - destroying an enemy transportation, ordnance, or aviation repair facility.
Strategic - destroying an enemy ball bearing factory.

Kind of… strategic is more the decisions that lead to the air force being sent to bomb things like ball bearing factories vs. airfields vs. oil refineries vs. railyards vs. cities vs. dams, etc…

Which ball bearing factories get bombed, and on what date, and by what wings/squadrons is more operational level decision-making.

The actual bombing mission itself is the tactical culmination of the other two levels’ direction.

Or… if you want to look at a historical event - D-Day, the strategic aspects of it centered mostly around where and when to invade, and what the broad-stroke plan was after the invasion.

The operational level part concerned concentrating the forces in southern England, which ones would be landing in the first wave, and so on.

The tactical level part was which regiments and battalions were assigned to which beaches, and what their objectives were.

Basically each level is a layer of abstraction of the layers below; if it helps, think of it this way- in a peacetime corporation, the strategic level concerns what products the company produces, what market share it possesses, and how it plans to improve that market share and produce profits. The operations level is more concerned with the actual implementation of those plans- the production of the products, the distribution of the products, the high-level design (what new features, etc…) and the marketing of the products. The tactical level is more the actual production, design and distribution of the products themselves- running the machines, dealing with daily snafus on the line, the actual nitty-gritty logistics, the actual drafting of parts in CAD systems, etc…

As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, their nomenclature is directly related to the level at which they’re intended to be employed. Strategic weapons are intended to fulfill the roles that the huge fleets of B-17, B-24 and B-29 bombers occupied during WW2- bombing the enemy war material infrastrucuture and population. Tactical nukes are intended to be employed on the battlefield- nuking airbases, headquarters, troop concentrations, etc… There aren’t really “operational level” nukes- that’s where the confusion comes in, I suspect. They’re typically called “theater level” nukes instead, and are meant to hit operational-level targets far in the rear, but that directly support or feed tactical level formations. Stuff like railheads, large supply dumps, freight airfields, railyards, road junctions, etc… That’s what the Pershing II missiles were intended to do.

[tim-n-va]

@KneadToKnow

Or, as I heard it put once:

If you bring a girl flowers when you pick her up for your date, that’s tactics. Sending her flowers at work the day before is strategy.

I heard a variation where the “bring her flowers” part was “get her drunk”.

Consistent with most of the above, this illustrates that tactics are actions in the presence of the enemy while strategy is action to set the conditions for the encounter.

[Sailboat]

Interestingly, the “operational” level identified above was originally a Soviet concept. The Soviets were big on theory. Other militaries decided that thinking in terms of an “operational” level made sense, and the idea spread.

Applied to a specific circumstance as an example:

Strategic: Germany wants to secure a supply of oil and hurt its enemy, the USSR. It decides to seize Soviet oil producing areas in the south.

Operational: The Sixth Army is sent south, but later diverted to secure a city on the flank of the advance, Stalingrad.

Tactical: Take your company and clear out the Tractor Works building across the street.

[bump]

@Sailboat

Interestingly, the “operational” level identified above was originally a Soviet concept. The Soviets were big on theory. Other militaries decided that thinking in terms of an “operational” level made sense, and the idea spread.

Applied to a specific circumstance as an example:

Strategic: Germany wants to secure a supply of oil and hurt its enemy, the USSR. It decides to seize Soviet oil producing areas in the south.

Operational: The Sixth Army is sent south, but later diverted to secure a city on the flank of the advance, Stalingrad.

Tactical: Take your company and clear out the Tractor Works building across the street.

Yep- that’s dead on.

In the context of getting laid, I’d think it’s more like this:

Strategy is deciding how you want to go about it- do you want to play the long game and date girls you meet at church, do you want to go to a bar and grab whoever’s still standing at last call, answer a Craigslist ad, or something else?

Operations is how you go about it- what bar do you go to, what do you wear, which girls at the bar do you talk to, etc…

Tactics takes place when you’re actually talking to her- do you tease her? Do you compliment her? Do you touch her leg? Do you switch and start talking to her friend?