Logistics.
“An army marches on its stomach.”
— Napoleon Bonaparte“Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics.”
— Omar BradleyErwin Rommel was a great tactician but a poor strategist.
During the invasion of France, his 7th Panzer Division was one of the most effective units in the field: he and Heinz Guderian were able to slip their army through a narrow gap in the Ardennes that had been left poorly defended by the Allies. They broke a bridgehead across the Meuse River at Sedan and then smashed into the French rear areas, encircling hundreds of thousands of Allied troops to the north, leading to the Dunkirk evacuation and the conquest of France and the Low Countries.
But he got lucky several times in a row to pull that off. Rommel moved so quickly that the “Ghost Division” outraced its own supply train and lost contact with headquarters, putting him beyond the reach of timely support in the event the French and British managed to rally. Had the Allied commanders been more on the ball, they could have easily cut him off and destroyed him. This same tendency to move too quickly is partly what ultimately led to the defeat of the Afrika Korps.
George Washington was a mediocre tactician, but a brilliant strategist.
George Washington fought around a dozen major battles in his military career, and lost half of them. He wasn’t a bad front-line battlefield commander (in his defense, he was almost always outnumbered), but he was far from the best even in his own time.
However, he excelled at seeing the larger strategic picture. Despite being outnumbered and out-supplied by his first French, then British opponents, he was a genius at maintaining the morale and cohesion of his army and conserving his own meager resources, as well as being very good at picking out which battles he actually needed to fight. He also understood the British Army very well, having fought alongside it during the French and Indian War. In this he epitomized Sun Tzu’s admonition that “If you know your enemy, and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.”
Most importantly, he understood how to translate his bird’s eye strategic perspective down to ground-level tactics and vice versa. He knew he didn’t need to defeat the British Army in a straight fight. The British Army had to defeat him to win. All he had to do was not lose: to keep his army in one piece and make the retention of the colonies too costly to continue the war.
Goals vs Tactics with a16z’s Marc Andreessen at Disrupt SF
10:20do you do that to a company yeah so alot of this is actually you can actuallyborrow concepts actually from militarystrategy on this which is sort of thedifference between sort of strategy andtactics right at a difference betweengoals and tactics so I think it’sincredibly important to have a reallyvivid clear idea about where you want toget in the long run that you stick toand that you’re very solid on and thateverybody agrees to and then I think youwant to be very very flexible in thetactics and I think the problem is youit’s a dichotomy right it’s a it’s acontradiction so you have to you have tothink about terms you have to think itfrom a long-term standpoint but also youhave to think in terms of day-to-daytactics and this is where you know I’vebeen very critical in the past to thisidea of like fail fast because like Ialways things like fail fast is like thekey word in there is not fast it’s failand failure sucks and success is awesomeand we should be trying to succeed notfail and I think the fail fast thing ispeople thinking because I think failfast makes a lot of sense on tactics ifthe tactics Network doesn’t work find adifferent tactic I think fail fast iscatastrophic if it’s applied to strategyand if it’s applied to goals and I thinka lot of founders frankly even stilllike talk themselves out of what aregoing to be good ideas in the long runbecause they’re not getting immediatetraction and so again it goes back tolong term like we just ruled by data andwhat cited by their gut that’s actuallyso that is actually a racing point sothat is one of the things that happenswhich is in the old day in the old dayswhen I when I was running short pantsyou just didn’t hat you didn’t have allthe data it was much harder to get asense of how well you were doing and solike on the one hand you you you feltless concrete connection to what you’redoing but on the other hand you didn’thave this cascade of data coming at youand now is you know like in all of thesebusinesses today you have daily weeklyif you want you have data to the minuteto the second to the microsecond of howwell or poorly you’re doing and it’sreally easy to get distracted by that bythat short term data and it’s reallyeasy to draw a long termLucian’s based on short-term data andyou do see companies that have gotten inreal trouble over that mm-hmmconversely you see companies you knowthat worked for a very long time onsomething that people think is justcompletely nutty and they get heavilycriticized along the way and by the waysometimes those work and sometimes theydon’t but when they do work that is howyou do something like for all this wholething about how everything’s supposed tobe speeding up it still takes a decadeor more to build something reallysignificant I mean it you know in thisworld like it still really does so whenit comes to like interesting productsthat seem to be sort of jerked around bytheir own data or were for a long time