Your piece has 2 problems. Firstly, you inject strategy into your argument when it is not required. Secondly, you misunderstand the actual message of the expression, quote or whatever. The author(s) of that expression do not discount the importance of tactics. What they are saying is that amateurs only focus on tactics. And as the immortal "Iron Mike" Tyson said "Everyone has a plan until they're punched in the face". Tactics' glaring problem is that the enemy employs tactics of their own which will often blunt or even negate your tactics as yours may also do the same. At that point, logistics becomes king. The side that has prepared beforehand to be ready to quickly reinforce and resupply their side of the "Schwerpunkt" is the side that often wins the day.
The Crimean War. The side with better economic and Industrial output wins. The American Civil War. The side with better economic and industrial output wins. Franco-Prussian War. The side with the better economic and industrial output wins (and especially superior logistics due to the germans rail usage). WW1. The side with better economic and industrial output wins. WW2. The side with better economic and industrial output wins. Notice a trend?
Strategy is important, but at the end of the day, nine times out of ten, the side which has more equipment wins because both sides will have both good and bad strategists and tacticians. And when they don't? It's usually because of the population being fed up with the war and national will breaking before their enemy does despite their enemy dying in droves.
Your piece has 2 problems. Firstly, you inject strategy into your argument when it is not required. Secondly, you misunderstand the actual message of the expression, quote or whatever. The author(s) of that expression do not discount the importance of tactics. What they are saying is that amateurs only focus on tactics. And as the immortal "Iron Mike" Tyson said "Everyone has a plan until they're punched in the face". Tactics' glaring problem is that the enemy employs tactics of their own which will often blunt or even negate your tactics as yours may also do the same. At that point, logistics becomes king. The side that has prepared beforehand to be ready to quickly reinforce and resupply their side of the "Schwerpunkt" is the side that often wins the day.
The Crimean War. The side with better economic and Industrial output wins. The American Civil War. The side with better economic and industrial output wins. Franco-Prussian War. The side with the better economic and industrial output wins (and especially superior logistics due to the germans rail usage). WW1. The side with better economic and industrial output wins. WW2. The side with better economic and industrial output wins. Notice a trend?
Strategy is important, but at the end of the day, nine times out of ten, the side which has more equipment wins because both sides will have both good and bad strategists and tacticians. And when they don't? It's usually because of the population being fed up with the war and national will breaking before their enemy does despite their enemy dying in droves.