Hello everyone.
My name is Daniel and I've volunteered to spearhead the discussion of Tactics.
First, I would like to thank Grim for the invite of facilitating the tactics portion of his military science 101.
Second, I would like to point people in this direction:
MCDP 1-3 Tactics as this is the work which will be used.
Finally, I would like to disclose that I am by no means a master tactician, I have a modicum of skill and experience in utilizing small unit tactics; beyond the platoon level I would feel like a fish out of water.
Strategy and tactics are interesting bed-fellows… strategy is your overall plan for the winning of the war… loosely, tactics is the means by which you accomplish your operational plan. The best way to begin is by defining what, exactly, tactics are:
“Tactics is ‘the art and science of winning engagements and battles. It includes the use of firepower and maneuver, the integration of different arms and the immediate exploitation of success to defeat the enemy’” MCDP1-3 pg. 3
The first striking feature is the reference to tactics being an ‘art and science’. This is not solely a modern martial reference to an old 16th century treatise on warfare (reminiscent of the old ‘fechtbuchs’ reference to science), it is a quantifiable truth.
Art:
1. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value. 2. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
Science:
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. 2. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. 3. Methodological activity, discipline, or study.
The art is best expressed in the intuitive factors involved in the decision making process and also manifests in the fluidity of utilizing combat power. The science is best expressed in the quantifiable skills such as land navigation, marksmanship, and so forth.
Breaking down the definition further, we see some things that, hopefully, should engage our brains from the Strategy lesson.
1. That is that there is a marked emphasis on ‘engagements and battles’; the distinction being that an engagement is a singular occurrence, whereas a battle may include a series of engagements,
2. The re-emphasis on the ‘fire and maneuver’ doctrine, and
3. The integration of combined arms, which is somewhat unique to the Corps in application.
For those who have neglected their Carl von Clausewitz, Patton, Sun Tzu, etc... let me say that from reading 'MCDP 1-1 Strategy' and the three points above... you should begin to realize that within military science, synthesis is the key. As we saw in Strategy, the synthesis lay in recognizing the needfull 'ends and means' and understanding the strategic environment of ones forces and the state. On the tactical level, that synthesis is the melding of the artistic and scientific concepts and then utilizing them from that point forward.
I invite folks to read the publication, and utilize the comments section to discuss the text. Again, as I said above, I am by no stretch a master tactician... it's my hope that others far wiser and more capable glance through the comments and help out where I fall short.
Finally, I leave you with the words of General Patton:
"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
See ya next month,
Daniel
