The Leavenworth Way of War

History Discussion at CGSC

My Doctrine Right or Wrong H210

The results of flawed doctrine: Unescorted Daylight Strategic Bombing

The focus of H200 was an analysis of how useful doctrine developed in peace time, based on previous war experience, proved to be in the conduct of operations in World War II.

The history of interwar transformation and doctrine development process provides insights into the relationship of peacetime visions of future wars and the actual conduct of war. In World War II the German army, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Marine Corps, and the U.S. Army Air Force all attempted to execute doctrine developed in the years after WWI, on the battlefields of WWII.

In some cases, blitzkrieg doctrine for example, the doctrine proved remarkably effective. In other cases, the primacy of the battleship in navy doctrine for example, the doctrine failed to meet the requirements of modern war. Were there organizational characteristics that permitted a particular service (the German army) to have an accurate understanding of tactical ground warfare, and another (the U.S. navy) fail to understand the importance of key technologies?

Some observers believe that writing doctrine in peace time is a futile exercise because the lessons of history are such that the conditions of the next war will be completely different from the last war and impossible to predict. Getting doctrine right is more luck than genius. Thus only very multi-functional formations are of any use to the army of the future, and only vague, general and generic doctrine is appropriate for the current and future operating environment. Do you agree or disagree?

Are there doctrinal issues which our current military refuses to recognize because we have invested too much in organization, training, and equipment to change the doctrine at this point? If so what are they and why are they flawed?

Advertisements

February 13, 2015 - Posted by | H200, military history, Professional Military Education | , , , , , , , ,

3 Comments »

  1. The essence of successful strategy is flexibility. Certain basics if in place will always make a difference, in simple terms, being able to see (recon/intel), being able to move forces (strategic mobility/tactical agility), and superior weapons technology.

    Comment by anniepani | July 19, 2015

  2. Missed something out, being able to communicate, and being able to co-ordinate different arms (artillery, infantry, armour, air etc).

    Comment by anniepani | July 19, 2015

  3. SORRY! I didn’t know what I was in the middle of. I was just browsing around worpress.com, I just saw your front page. Still a very interesting blog!

    PS Don’t look at my blog the Army wouldn’t like it!

    Comment by anniepani | July 19, 2015


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: