Military Strategy: Mastering Warfare, The Art and Science of Modern Conflict

By Fouad Sabry

What is Military Strategy

Military strategy is a set of ideas implemented by military organizations to pursue desired strategic goals. Derived from the Greek word strategos, the term strategy, when first used during the 18th century, was seen in its narrow sense as the "art of the general", or "the art of arrangement" of troops. and deals with the planning and conduct of campaigns, the movement and disposition of forces, and the deception of the enemy.

How you will benefit

(I) Insights, and validations about the following topics:

Chapter 1: Military Strategy

Chapter 2: Battle

Chapter 3: Blitzkrieg

Chapter 4: Carl von Clausewitz

Chapter 5: On War

Chapter 6: Military Doctrine

Chapter 7: Order of Battle

Chapter 8: Attrition Warfare

Chapter 9: Fabian Strategy

Chapter 10: Victory Disease

(II) Answering the public top questions about military strategy.

Who this book is for

Professionals, undergraduate and graduate students, enthusiasts, hobbyists, and those who want to go beyond basic knowledge or information for any kind of Military Strategy.

• Language: English
• Publisher: One Billion Knowledgeable
• Release date: Jun 3, 2024

Book preview

Chapter 1: Military strategy

A set of concepts used by military organizations to pursue desired strategic goals is known as a military strategy. It focuses on the organization and execution of campaigns, the movement and deployment of forces, and the enemy's deception.

Military strategy is the employment of battles to accomplish the end of war, according to Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831). Clausewitz is regarded as the founder of contemporary strategic studies in the West. Consequently, both prioritized political objectives over military objectives.

Often referred to as the Father of Eastern Military Strategy, Sun Tzu (544–496 BC) had a significant impact on historical and contemporary battle tactics in China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam.

In contrast to operations and tactics, strategy involves the long-term, high-level planning, development, and acquisition of a nation's total military capabilities in order to ensure security or victory. The skill of coordinating forces on or near the battlefield to secure goals as part of a larger military strategy is known as operations and tactics.

Military strategy refers to the organization and conduct of the conflict between teams of armed enemies. It is a branch of international policy and warfare that serves as a key tool for protecting national interests. Unlike military tactics, which concern the positioning and movement of units on a specific sea or battlefield, its perspective is wider, In the 19th century, military strategy was still seen as one of the three arts or sciences that regulate how war is fought; the other two are tactics, which dictate how battle plans are carried out and how forces are maneuvered, and logistics, which governs how an army is kept in good condition. The perspective had been in place since Roman times, and at this time, the distinction between strategy and tactics was hazy. In certain cases, classifying a choice depends almost entirely on personal preference. Carnot believed that throughout the French Revolutionary Wars, it merely included troop concentration.

Modern thinking positions the operational level between strategy and tactics, which are intimately tied to one another and exist on the same continuum as one another. All deal with distance, time, and force, but while tactics are small-scale and entail the disposition of fewer elements over short periods of time (hours to weeks), strategies are large-scale, can last for years, and are social in nature. Originally, it was believed that strategy governed the lead-up to a conflict while tactics managed its conduct. But as technology and transportation improved, the line between movement and fight, strategy and tactics, grew clearer in the world conflicts of the 20th century. A panzer army would employ strategies that formerly applied to a cavalry company.

It is frequently asserted that although tactics outline the means by which these aims will be attained, the art of strategy defines the objectives to be accomplished throughout a military operation. While tactical choices range from a general statement—for example, We're going to do this by a naval invasion of the North of country X, We're going to blockade the ports of country Y, to a more specific statement—C Platoon will attack while D platoon provides fire cover—strategic goals could be, We want to conquer area X, or We want to stop country Y's expansion in world trade in commodity Z..

In its most basic form, strategy only addressed military-related issues. A monarch or other political figure frequently served as both the military and political head of state in past times. If not, there was little communication gap between the military and political leaders. However, the boundaries between politics and the military came to be understood as the demand for a professional army increased. Many times, it was determined that a separation was necessary.

Georges Clemenceau, a French leader, once observed that war is too vital a business to be left to soldiers. This gave rise to the idea of grand strategy, which includes managing all of a nation's resources while conducting war. The planning and command of sizable military formations like corps and divisions falls under the purview of operational strategy in the context of grand strategy. The distinction between military strategy and grand strategy became less significant as armies grew in size and number and communication and control technologies advanced. The use of diplomacy to form alliances or coerce another nation into submission in order to win without using force is a fundamental component of grand strategy. The management of the post-war peace is another component of grand strategy.

A good military strategy may be a means to an objective, but it is not an end in and of itself, as Clausewitz noted. There are several instances in history where the attainment of objectives like long-term peace, stability, or tranquility did not follow a military triumph.

Many military strategists have tried to distill a winning plan into a set of guiding principles. In The Art of War, Sun Tzu outlined 13 guiding principles whereas Napoleon compiled 115 maxims. General Nathan Bedford Forrest's main objective during the American Civil War was to [get] there first with the most men..

Specific Type (Direct every military operation towards a clearly defined, decisive, and attainable objective)

Defamatory Type (Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative)

mass kind (Concentrate combat power at the decisive place and time)

Efficiency of Force (Allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts)

Operation Type (Place the enemy in a disadvantageous position through the flexible application of combat power)

Type of Unity of Command (For every objective, ensure unity of effort under one responsible commander)

Assurance Level (Never permit the enemy to acquire an unexpected advantage)

Unexpected Type (Strike the enemy at a time, at a place, or in a manner for which they are unprepared)

Type of Simplicity (Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans and clear, concise orders to ensure thorough understanding)

Greene and Armstrong contend that while some strategists believe that adherence to the fundamental principles ensures victory, others believe that war is unpredictable and that the strategist must be adaptable. Others contend that if the protagonists saw the scenario from the opposing sides of a disagreement, predictability may be strengthened. When a general is under pressure, Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke defined strategy as a set of ad hoc expedients. These fundamental strategies have largely been unaffected by the advancement of military technology.

In response to technological advancements, strategy (and tactics) must constantly change.

A successful strategy from one era tends to remain in favor long after new developments in military weaponry and matériel have rendered it obsolete.

One World War, and the American Civil War to a large extent, saw the trench's defensive power juxtaposed against Napoleonic tactics of offense at all costs., barbed wire and machine guns.

In response to her involvement in World War I, France tried to use the concepts of Mass and Economy of force with its Maginot Line, the Line served as a force multiplier in the south, allowing forces to be focused in the north for an offensive there, & Flexibility and Security, the Germans from traveling straight from Alsace to Paris.

The writings of Sun Tzu and Chanakya, written at least 500 years ago, first introduced the fundamentals of military strategy. The campaigns of Cyrus the Great in particular, but also those of Alexander the Great, Chandragupta Maurya, Hannibal, Qin Shi Huang, Julius Caesar, Zhuge Liang, and Khalid ibn al-Walid, show tactical movement and planning. The Influence of Sea Power upon History's prologue by Mahan details how the Romans, despite never defeating Hannibal in Italy with their legions, used their sea power to successfully restrict the sea lines of communication between Hannibal and Carthage.

One of these tactics was demonstrated during the conflict between Persia and the Greek city states. A sound military tactic was employed at the Battle of Thermopylae, where the Greek soldiers were outnumbered. Despite ultimately losing, the Greek allied forces were able to beat a large number of Persian soldiers thanks to their preparation, use of armor, and strategic positioning. Because of this tactic, which was carried over to the battle of Plataea, the Greek alliance ultimately lost the fight but not the war. The Greeks defeated Persia in the Battle of Plataea in 479 BC, demonstrating the value of military strategy in disposing of a number of adversaries.

The annihilation plan was one of the earliest tactics, exhaustion, attrition warfare, deed of burnt earth, blockade, guerrilla campaign, trickery and feint.

The only thing limiting inventiveness and skill was imagination, accord, and technology.

Strategists continuously took advantage of evolving technology.

The word strategy itself derives from the Greek στρατηγία (strategia), general office, command, generalship", There is no proof that it was employed in Ancient Greek in the current sense, however, we discover it in Byzantine writings dating back to the sixth century, especially in the book attributed to Byzantine Emperor Leo VI the Wise.

The Mongol Emperor Genghis Khan serves as a helpful counterexample to European advancements in the strategic art. Success under Genghis and his successors was founded on trickery and terror. The psychology of the oppositional populace was the main target of Genghis' strategic assault. Genghis and his descendants were able to conquer the majority of Eurasia by carefully and steadily carrying out this plan. The foundation of Genghis' army and his plan were his mounted archer tribesmen, scorched earth tactics, and equally crucial, the immense Mongolian horse herds.

With an average of five horses per soldier, each archer had at least one extra horse, allowing the army as a whole to move incredibly quickly. Furthermore, Genghis' horse-herds served as both his means of transportation and his logistical support because horse milk and horse blood were essential components of the Mongolian diet. All other requirements would be gathered illegally or stolen. Along with movable shelters, concubines, butchers, and cooks, Khan's marauders also brought with them. Chinese, Persian, Arab, and Eastern European armies could be maneuvered and relentlessly attacked until they gave way,