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.
If strategy is the effective alignment of values, purposes, ends, ways, and means; and logistics is everything that gets enough of the right means in the right time, place, and manner, then logistics is intrinsically a major subset of strategy; but tactics isn’t. It might be better to say “Amateurs discuss procedures. Professionals discuss strategy”. Then again, there are amateurs and professionals at every level: tactical, operational, and strategic. So this revised saying doesn’t seem profitable. There is also the hallmark of a profession to consider; which is that professionals generate new knowledge. In this light, it seems that new logistics knowledge seems more valuable because a weak but suitable tactic with superior logistics is frequently more effective than an excellent tactic with inferior logistics. But the real truth behind the saying does not glorify logisticians nor disparage tacticians. It is simply that without logistics, you only have what you have, and when that runs out, you’re lost. It might be more valuable to say, “First learn how to operate, then learn how logistics enables and sustains operations and enables strategies, then develop new knowledge about both, and then learn and develop knew knowledge about strategy.”
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.
If strategy is the effective alignment of values, purposes, ends, ways, and means; and logistics is everything that gets enough of the right means in the right time, place, and manner, then logistics is intrinsically a major subset of strategy; but tactics isn’t. It might be better to say “Amateurs discuss procedures. Professionals discuss strategy”. Then again, there are amateurs and professionals at every level: tactical, operational, and strategic. So this revised saying doesn’t seem profitable. There is also the hallmark of a profession to consider; which is that professionals generate new knowledge. In this light, it seems that new logistics knowledge seems more valuable because a weak but suitable tactic with superior logistics is frequently more effective than an excellent tactic with inferior logistics. But the real truth behind the saying does not glorify logisticians nor disparage tacticians. It is simply that without logistics, you only have what you have, and when that runs out, you’re lost. It might be more valuable to say, “First learn how to operate, then learn how logistics enables and sustains operations and enables strategies, then develop new knowledge about both, and then learn and develop knew knowledge about strategy.”