A brief demonstration of the difference between a tactical and strategic victory in military terms. Music: Light Thought var. 4 by Kevin MacLeod All This Scoring Action by Kevin MacLeod
Conan Cimmerian Pearl Harbor was not a strategic or Tactically victory for Japan. It only achieved one of its main strategical goal. Pearl Harbor was suppose to knock out the two Carrier Task force based their, knock out the capital ships or least cut its operational capacity in the Pacific AND knock out the bases operational capacity (i.e. Repair bases, Air bases and it's supply lines) Japan only achieved one (and that's agruable as all of the Capital ships they sunk were outdated prewar ships)
They still destroyed and damaged far more (and more powerful) enemy units than they lost. That alone makes it a tactical victory. Your examples are more strategic in nature.
What about Battle of the Seelow Heights during the battle of Berlin Stalin ordered the attack through the Seelow Heights at the last days of ww2 He lost 35,000 of his men if I waited a week or two weeks Stalin will not lost all thoes soldiers..
Pearl Harbor was indeed a tactical victory. Lol what aren’t you understanding? The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, dealing more damage than was dealt to them. It was a tactical victory. Gaining a tactical victory is, yes, that simple. Edit: -in most cases, at least.
Warplanning for a strategic warfare and Tactical are actually two different concepts. Although it is very possible to win strategically but lose tactically, it is rare because in order to win strategically you have to win either: 1) a series of tactical battles or 2) win the deciding Tactical battle. It's the short-term goals vs the Long-term goal. For example, in chess (much like war) an experienced player will set-up several traps to bait their opponent to overcommit or expose it's defense. If the player sets a bishop and Rook as traps baiting their opponent to overcommit and leave their primary defense and subsequently loses its king. The player wins both tactically and strategically. To win strategically and lose tactically often requires their opponent to screw up royally on their own tactically plan.
yes and in the scale of a battle, a tactical victory would be winning something you need to win the battle (such as a stronger position) while a strategic victory would be just winning the battle. so as you see it can be scaled upwards or downwards. the strategy is the overarching plan to achieve a goal. the tactics are the actions you take to achieve goals that are required to achieve the overall goal.
A perfect example of winning tactically but losing strategically would be the 4th battle of kawanakajima plain, between two rival japanese warlords, Uesugi Kenshin, and Takeda Shingen. While Takeda Shingen was invading Echigo, which was controlled by Uesugi Kenshin, Kenshin launched a surprise attack on Shingen's army after a large part of his army was lured away. after a hard fought battle, Kenshin was forced to retreat when the rest of Shingen's army joined. Kenshin lost around 70% of his army, while Shingen lost around 60%. Because Kenshin lost more men and was forced to retreat in the end, he lost the battle, but Shingen lost too much of his army to realistically continue his invasion, so he had to retreat as well. Shingen won a tactical victory, having defeated Kenshin in the battle, but Kenshin won the strategic victory, succeeding in defending his lands from being conquered by Takeda Shingen.
I think going for a tactical victory is trying to inflict as much as possible, enemy casualties, while your own army has light casualties. Strategic victory is when you want to achieve the main objective, no matter if you have more or less casualties then your enemies.
I love your videos, well done. But we must never forget that between tactics & strategy there is the Operational Art. The operational level of Warfare bridges tactics & strategy. "An operation is a weapon of strategy, while strategy is a weapon of politics. This is why an operation is not the highest stage of armed conflict. Rather, an operation is itself an element within the larger equation, subordinate to war in general." - Red Army Commander G.S. Isserson
I think the defending army win both strategically and tactically because their tactic was not too kill as many people as they can but to hold them as long as they can and in end they successfully hold invaders for a enough long time..
@@kalebgonzales4009 For example, the battle of Khe Sanh in the victory over Vietnam, the US troops succeeded in breaking the North Vietnamese encirclement and avoiding the complete annihilation of the US troops stationed at Khe Sanh base, although the North Vietnamese did not. captured Khe Sanh base quickly, but they still preserved their forces after the encirclement and continued to attack the US troops with the "loose encirclement" tactic (The besieged side could still go in and out of the encirclement but had to accept the encirclement). received losses inflicted by the siege troops through ambushes) and they succeeded in forcing the Americans to withdraw from the base.
@@kalebgonzales4009 The Americans declared victory at Khe Sanh in April 1968 (they still held the base and made a safe retreat, although they kept a small force behind to keep the birth), it was a tactical victory. North Vietnam declared victory in July of the same year (they still forced the Americans to withdraw from the base and completely control this base, this is still a victory for them because of Khe Sanh base and McNamara electronic fence. This has caused a lot of difficulties for the supply and logistics activities on the Ho Chi Minh trail, so the elimination of this base is very beneficial for them), which is a strategic victory.
Jack of War, thanks mate. So good video that in a most simple way explain the difference, that a 5 year old child after watching it , will knew the difference for life. This should watch ALL who still claim that Nazis almost won the war , just because they aprouch with scot units 19 km away from Moscow ( In your video that will be similarly , like the Donkey army not reach in arrow distance from castle , but still claim: `see how fast we come here, we almost don it~, without actuslly shot not a one single arrow inside the castle walls ). Very good example video. Thanks again , tumb up.
I am not sure this is the best example. They are both tactical in nature because they are considered on the small time scale. A better example would have been if you zoomed out of the battlefield and showed what the rest of the situation looked like to both sides. For example, despite Billy being able to hold off the army thanks to his tactical retreat it might have not mattered due to the other side having sufficient supply lines and the ability to bypass the castle alltogether. That would be stragetic victory, thereby subdueing the enemy without fighting.
In most superpower vs small band guerrilla type wars; the big boys take most of the tactical battles, but in the end the smaller less equipped outfit win the day (strategic) when the big guy is forced even by their own internal political dynamics to withdraw: US in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan USSR in Afghanistan I predict the same fate awaits them Ruskis in Ukraine.
The thing with Russia in that war, at least as far as we can tell, is that they have lost the majority of tactical battles as well. However, Russia has a long history of being god awful at this war thing in the beginning but then pulling through and eventually winning towards the end so the result is still uncertain.
no,it does not.Winning tactically is just a small step for a victory of war Strategic mean you have to plan everything before a battle,Tactic is the way you handle in the process
Win a battle but lost a war,it's complicated to explain Like example from Stalingrad,the main goal of the German forces was to take an oil and the land is the strategy and the defense of Soviet army was tactical way that let them win the German After that,the Soviet and the Alliance took half of Berlin and German lost the war
Japanese Commander Hara Chuichi on Pearl Harbor: "We won a great tactical victory at Pearl Harbor and thereby lost the war."
Conan Cimmerian Pearl Harbor was not a strategic or Tactically victory for Japan. It only achieved one of its main strategical goal. Pearl Harbor was suppose to knock out the two Carrier Task force based their, knock out the capital ships or least cut its operational capacity in the Pacific AND knock out the bases operational capacity (i.e. Repair bases, Air bases and it's supply lines) Japan only achieved one (and that's agruable as all of the Capital ships they sunk were outdated prewar ships)
They still destroyed and damaged far more (and more powerful) enemy units than they lost. That alone makes it a tactical victory. Your examples are more strategic in nature.
What about Battle of the Seelow Heights during the battle of Berlin Stalin ordered the attack through the Seelow Heights at the last days of ww2 He lost 35,000 of his men if I waited a week or two weeks Stalin will not lost all thoes soldiers..
It was in both cases a strategical and tactical defeat.
Pearl Harbor was indeed a tactical victory.
Lol what aren’t you understanding?
The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, dealing more damage than was dealt to them. It was a tactical victory. Gaining a tactical victory is, yes, that simple.
Edit: -in most cases, at least.
Warplanning for a strategic warfare and Tactical are actually two different concepts. Although it is very possible to win strategically but lose tactically, it is rare because in order to win strategically you have to win either: 1) a series of tactical battles or 2) win the deciding Tactical battle. It's the short-term goals vs the Long-term goal. For example, in chess (much like war) an experienced player will set-up several traps to bait their opponent to overcommit or expose it's defense. If the player sets a bishop and Rook as traps baiting their opponent to overcommit and leave their primary defense and subsequently loses its king. The player wins both tactically and strategically. To win strategically and lose tactically often requires their opponent to screw up royally on their own tactically plan.
Leo Chang good
Leo Chang seriously I still can't understand that can u explain in more appropriate way . Thx
Hairul fahmi you can't win wars without winning battles
@@CookieJari it means must win the planning first then can go start to war ?
@@CookieJari Wrong. In Russia at one time enemy was victorious but russians retreated and burned their vilages and later enemy was forced to leave.
So tactical victory = winning the battle, strategic victory = winning the war?
yes and in the scale of a battle, a tactical victory would be winning something you need to win the battle (such as a stronger position) while a strategic victory would be just winning the battle. so as you see it can be scaled upwards or downwards. the strategy is the overarching plan to achieve a goal. the tactics are the actions you take to achieve goals that are required to achieve the overall goal.
Exactly!!!
Haha, that what I commented now! :)
This looks like nazi and soviet, nazi won the tactical win and the soviet won the strategic win
A perfect example of winning tactically but losing strategically would be the 4th battle of kawanakajima plain, between two rival japanese warlords, Uesugi Kenshin, and Takeda Shingen. While Takeda Shingen was invading Echigo, which was controlled by Uesugi Kenshin, Kenshin launched a surprise attack on Shingen's army after a large part of his army was lured away. after a hard fought battle, Kenshin was forced to retreat when the rest of Shingen's army joined. Kenshin lost around 70% of his army, while Shingen lost around 60%. Because Kenshin lost more men and was forced to retreat in the end, he lost the battle, but Shingen lost too much of his army to realistically continue his invasion, so he had to retreat as well. Shingen won a tactical victory, having defeated Kenshin in the battle, but Kenshin won the strategic victory, succeeding in defending his lands from being conquered by Takeda Shingen.
I think going for a tactical victory is trying to inflict as much as possible, enemy casualties, while your own army has light casualties. Strategic victory is when you want to achieve the main objective, no matter if you have more or less casualties then your enemies.
Simple but great explanation.
Beautiful
Excellent applications in psychology.
I didn’t understand that. I’m going to have to watch it again. I thought strategy and tactics were the same thing.
Good explanation ill subscribe
Glad you like it!
I love your videos, well done.
But we must never forget that between tactics & strategy there is the Operational Art. The operational level of Warfare bridges tactics & strategy.
"An operation is a weapon of strategy, while strategy is a weapon of politics. This is why an operation is not the highest stage of armed conflict. Rather, an operation is itself an element within the larger equation, subordinate to war in general."
- Red Army Commander G.S. Isserson
so tactics is short term and strategy is long term
I can't take the video seriuosly when Donkey OS atackkng the Billy's Castle and that serious music is playing ahahahah
I think the defending army win both strategically and tactically because their tactic was not too kill as many people as they can but to hold them as long as they can and in end they successfully hold invaders for a enough long time..
Thx Jack,I understood,strategy focus whole battle.tactics service strategy,without care part of strategic(tactical) win yes or not.right,Jack?
However,thx U any way~
💪💪💯
So tactical is somewhat short term while strategic is a larger piece of the pie? Like the saying: “ they have won the battle, but have lost the war.”?
Each battle has a tactical and strategic significance, not just a war.
@@thanglethanh2112 Then what is it then?
@@kalebgonzales4009 For example, the battle of Khe Sanh in the victory over Vietnam, the US troops succeeded in breaking the North Vietnamese encirclement and avoiding the complete annihilation of the US troops stationed at Khe Sanh base, although the North Vietnamese did not. captured Khe Sanh base quickly, but they still preserved their forces after the encirclement and continued to attack the US troops with the "loose encirclement" tactic (The besieged side could still go in and out of the encirclement but had to accept the encirclement). received losses inflicted by the siege troops through ambushes) and they succeeded in forcing the Americans to withdraw from the base.
@@kalebgonzales4009 The Americans declared victory at Khe Sanh in April 1968 (they still held the base and made a safe retreat, although they kept a small force behind to keep the birth), it was a tactical victory. North Vietnam declared victory in July of the same year (they still forced the Americans to withdraw from the base and completely control this base, this is still a victory for them because of Khe Sanh base and McNamara electronic fence. This has caused a lot of difficulties for the supply and logistics activities on the Ho Chi Minh trail, so the elimination of this base is very beneficial for them), which is a strategic victory.
Jack of War, thanks mate. So good video that in a most simple way explain the difference, that a 5 year old child after watching it , will knew the difference for life.
This should watch ALL who still claim that Nazis almost won the war , just because they aprouch with scot units 19 km away from Moscow ( In your video that will be similarly , like the Donkey army not reach in arrow distance from castle , but still claim: `see how fast we come here, we almost don it~, without actuslly shot not a one single arrow inside the castle walls ).
Very good example video. Thanks again , tumb up.
How do people not know this?
Uhmm... not all people are into history or war
@@keanu3035 well "they" are stupid
Tactics: straight forward long plan
Strategy: Step by Step plans under different situations
its the other way around
I am not sure this is the best example. They are both tactical in nature because they are considered on the small time scale.
A better example would have been if you zoomed out of the battlefield and showed what the rest of the situation looked like to both sides.
For example, despite Billy being able to hold off the army thanks to his tactical retreat it might have not mattered due to the other side having sufficient supply lines and the ability to bypass the castle alltogether. That would be stragetic victory, thereby subdueing the enemy without fighting.
Forgot Operational Level.
In most superpower vs small band guerrilla type wars; the big boys take most of the tactical battles, but in the end the smaller less equipped outfit win the day (strategic) when the big guy is forced even by their own internal political dynamics to withdraw:
US in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan
USSR in Afghanistan
I predict the same fate awaits them Ruskis in Ukraine.
The thing with Russia in that war, at least as far as we can tell, is that they have lost the majority of tactical battles as well. However, Russia has a long history of being god awful at this war thing in the beginning but then pulling through and eventually winning towards the end so the result is still uncertain.
Ukies win lots of battle but they may lost a war,just like the Finnishs in the past.
Strategic tang victory
The battle of Jutland was one of these battles.
Same battle? What's time?
Wait so does that mean tactical is worse then strategic?
no,it does not.Winning tactically is just a small step for a victory of war
Strategic mean you have to plan everything before a battle,Tactic is the way you handle in the process
Win a battle but lost a war,it's complicated to explain
Like example from Stalingrad,the main goal of the German forces was to take an oil and the land is the strategy and the defense of Soviet army was tactical way that let them win the German
After that,the Soviet and the Alliance took half of Berlin and German lost the war
@@diephoainambui9682 it’s like the plot to a story.