Strategic vs Operational vs Tactical

[Greyfox]

All, 

      To some extent that discussion is based on time period.  For most of recorded history, there was no such animal as the operational level of war.  Also there is currently a major debate as to whether or not there are levels of strategy (i.e. theater strategy vs. Grand strategy, or whether strategy is all-encompassing).
       From a modern U.S. Army perspective (which can be applied to WWII) the following is a good rule of thumb:

Tactical -  The Division is the largest Tactical Formation in the U.S. Army and allows flexible task organization to conduct combinded arms maneuver. So  anything Division or less can be considered tactical, though in a few rare instances, a reinforced division can be established as a Combined, Joint, or Combined Joint Task Force -- making it an operational level HQs. 

Operational -  Corps, Armies, and Army Groups could be considered Operational Level HQs in WWII.  In modern times, Corps is the lowest level operational level HQs.  Armies can be used Combined, Joint, or Combined Joint HQs as well.  

Strategic -  During WW II specific HQs (e.g. SHAEF) would have been designated as in charge of all operations in a theater - in essence a Strategic level HQs.  For the Modern U.S. Military - that is the function of the Geographic Combatant Commands.


Mike