Talk:Operational art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Related task forces (general topics):
	Military science task force
Related task forces (nations and regions):
	Russian and Soviet military history task force

[edit] Disagree with this article

Personally, I think this article on operational art is confused and misleading. First of all, operational art was originally articulated by the Soviets in the 1920s and 1930s, yet no mention is given here of this, or even of the names of Varfolomeev, Isserson, Triandafillov, Kamenev, Tukhachevskii, or Svechin, to name a few. Second, the article incorrectly defines attrition warfare and maneuver warfare as components of operational art. This is absolutely incorrect. Attrition warfare is essentially tactically driven, whereby destruction of enemy forces through combat becomes the main strategy. In essence, strategy and operations are defined through purely tactical action, resulting in operations that take an opportunistic path based on combat. One can say that there is maneuver in tactics, and this is so, but tactics is not about maneuvering, it's about attriting the enemy in combat. If simple maneuvers help to present greater firepower at a given time, fine. But, never forget a battle is won primarily through the attrition of battle.

Maneuver warfare is, however, an operational concept, because it seeks to place forces in such a position that it renders the enemy's position untenable. In the case of an offensive, a defender that has their lines of communications cut off is in a very dangerous situation and must take measures to restore communications. This will require leaving its position, and moving. This exposes the defender to possible attack on the road as well as removing them from their fortifications. Hence, operational art creates more favorable tactical opportunities through a form of operational shock.

I had originally planned on placing an entirely different article here, but thought it wiser to express my views first. Any comments?

Razvedchik 07:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I would support that. Be bold! —Michael Z. 2005-09-29 15:00 Z