Talk:Military tactics
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. | ||||
|
More information...
|
|||||
Contents |
[edit] Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was to move this page
Tannar vandalized this page, i cannot fix it...Admin help!75.46.187.197 00:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Military tactic→Military tactics — This is about the subject of tactics, not about a tactic. —Michael Z. 2005-12-28 17:32 Z
[edit] Voting
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
- Support—my request. —Michael Z. 2005-12-28 17:34 Z
- support, totally non-controversial. --Irpen 17:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Olessi 19:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. -ryan-d 05:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- support, totally non-controversial. Gronky 13:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] Operations
The current article seems to get a couple of things not quite right:
- "Military tactics is the collective name for methods of engaging and defeating an enemy in battle."
I think tactics is a subject, not simply the plural form of the noun tactic.
- "In current military thought, tactics comprise the operational use of forces in a particular combat situation."
Are not tactical, operational, and strategic the three discrete levels of military thinking? See operational art, operational warfare, military strategy —Michael Z. 2006-01-1 18:36 Z
Yes, I agree. I'll make a minor change to that effect.RDT2 14:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What's missing?
When I look at the list of military tactics, I see a good candidate for what could be included on this page. Each of the sections on the listing page could easily be a separate discussion on the military tactics page, expanding on the subject according to the list content. Why keep them separate? — RJH (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
