Tactics, Volume 1 (of 2). Introduction and Formal Tactics of InfantryBalck, W. (William)
History
Tactics, Volume 1 (of 2). Introduction and Formal Tactics of Infantry
Balck, W. (William)
Military art and science; Tactics
Von Bülow, the author of _The Spirit of Modern Warfare_ (1798)[5],
calls those movements strategical which are made outside the enemy’s
sphere of information. Von Willisen considers strategy the science
of communications, tactics the science of fighting. Von Clausewitz
calls strategy the science of the use of battles for the purpose of
the war (Jomini: “_l’art de diriger les armées sur les théatres
d’opérations_”)[6], tactics the science of the use of military forces
in battle (Jomini: “_l’art de diriger les troupes sur les champs de
bataille_”).[7][8] General von Horsetzki (1892) defines strategy as the
study of the conditions necessary for success in war. Archduke Charles
calls strategy the “science of war” and tactics the “art of war”.
Frederick the Great and Napoleon always employed the term “_l’art de
guerre_” instead of the term “_strategy_”. None of these definitions
are comprehensive enough, because they do not cover marches, outposts,
the supply service, and enterprises in minor tactics. Professor
Delbrück’s definition is much more appropriate: “Strategy is the
science of utilizing military resources for the attainment of the
object of the war, tactics the art of leading troops into and in
battle.” Thiers, the French historian, instead of seeking to define
strategy and tactics, contents himself with explaining the problems
of each: “_Le stratège doit concevoir le plan de campagne, embrasser
d’un seul coup d’oeil tout le théatre présumé de la guerre, tracer
lignes d’opérations et diriger les masses sur les points décisifs. Le
tacticien a pour mission de régler l’ordre de leurs marches, de les
disposer en bataille aux différents points, indiqués par le stratège,
d’engager l’action, de la soutenir et de manoeuvrer pour atteindre le
but proposé._”[9] Fieldmarshal Moltke calls strategy “the application
of common sense to the conduct of war.”[10] For practical purposes it
is sufficient to define strategy as the _science of the conduct of
war_, tactics as the _science of troop-leading_. Strategy brings about
the decision on the theater of war, while the duty of carrying it out,
in the manner desired by the commander-in-chief, devolves upon tactics.
Thus the strategical idea culminates on the battlefield. The concentric
advance of the Prussian armies into Bohemia in 1866 naturally led to a
complete envelopment of the Austrians on the field of Königgrätz. The
German attack in the battle on the Hallue, Dec. 23rd, 1870, was based
on the strategical requirement of driving the French from their line of
retreat leading to Arras and Bapaume, by enveloping their right flank.
The attempts made by the 15th Infantry Division, which was holding the
enemy in front, to envelop the left wing of the French, interfered
with the execution of the correct strategical plan. Thus, in following
up a success, in itself quite unimportant (the capture of Bussy), the
leading basic principle was forgotten. The same thing happened here
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account