Theory, History, and Doctrine in the Evolution of Military Tactics - Essay Example

?Theory, History and Doctrine in the Evolution of Military Tactics Introduction Military tactic is a part of the military strategy employed during battle. This tactic is learned through military doctrines and evolved through the officer or soldier’s own experience whenever he has survived battle. These are also improved in simulations and training where various situations are taught and taken as they are and should be. This paper will discuss the military tactics throughout history and provide an understanding of their use whether they are successful or not. Military Tactic and Strategy Military tactics are the means and art of which an organization of army employs techniques and weaponry to defeat the enemy during battle (Clausewitz, 1832). It is the lowest level of military planning, followed by operational, and encompassed by the highest level which is military strategy. Military strategy has evolved to mean more than war time but now encompass even peace time and the strategies involved to prevent war itself (Lider, 1981). Previously, Clausewitz (1832) defined military strategy as “the deployment of the battles as the means toward the attainment of the object of war,” (12). Hart (1980) also re-joined with his description as “the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfil the ends of policy,” (page) both of which imply armed violence. However, it is also notable that strategy meant more that the use of armed violence but covered policy, political, economic, ideological and techno-scientific means of nations in pursuit of victory (Lider, 1981). Earle (1944) included in military strategy even activities of peacetime to encompass non-military factors of economic, psychological, moral, political, and technological aspects to become an art of controlling all the resources of a nations and its allies to secure vital interests against enemies, perceived or otherwise. It integrates all military efforts and policies as a “grand strategy” for peace and war time. War is the object of which should be prevented or prepared for in peacetime. Osgood (1962) also defined military strategy as “nothing less than the overall plan for utilizing the capacity for armed coercion – in conjunction with the economic, diplomatic, and psychological instruments of power – to support foreign policy most effectively by over, covert and tacit means,” (5). Third definition of military strategy included both the means and the ends so that it uses the entire state power or its aggregate potentials to attain the whole or majority of its political goals (Lider, 1981). Holloway (1979) added in the grand strategy all elements of a society’s power to support its security objectives with the main one being the prevention of “the loss of our way of life” (19). Principles of Military Tactics There are a variety of military tactics employed in battlefield. One of them is the United States’ Army’s version which trains soldiers of the following: Simplicity in a tactical plan maintains simple concept and execution where failure points are avoided. Direct tactics can make other people understand fully their actions and the part of others. This will aid them in contributing to the success of a maneuver. Surprise will keep the enemy wondering and can be employed using subtle appearance in urban self-defense, stealth and deception in battlefield, or any daring action which is least expected by the enemy camp. Speed is doing as fast as possible whatever is needed and be ready for the next long before the enemy has time to react on the first. Security considers safety at all times with its rear and flanks to keep the enemy from doing what the combatant wants to do to them. Violence of action will destroy the will of the enemy to fight (Curahee, 2008) The principle of military tactics also cover the main objective, which is a particular aim such as disengagement from an advancing enemy or maintaining movement through protection of advancing troops. Principles also employ various practical tactics that include concentration of force, exploitation of weather or night time to avoid detection, maintenance of reserves, economizing and protection of force, surveillance and deception, countermeasures and fortification (Curahee, 2008). Intelligent tactic is also employed resting on the creativity of the combatant, employment of surprise, stealth, adaptation, responsiveness to changing possibilities, and capabilities during battle. Force on the other hand, refers to the hierarchical direction, direct power and central direction of the attack and it was suggested that intelligent is better than force tactic (Bakan, 1982). Intelligent tactic in the US has evolved to Airland Battle doctrine which is maneuver-oriented and focus is on the initiative and agility of all commanders. Junior leaders are encouraged to deviate from previous plans when opportunities ask for it in order to accomplish a mission (Hart and Sulzen, 1988). This meant that small but well-trained and intelligently led forces can defeat a larger but poorly trained and led forces (Hart and Sulzen, 1988). The intelligent tactic today has evolved to encompass computer generated forces or CGF (Gonzalez et al, 2005). It allows the agent to act accordingly depending on the situation experienced which Thorndike (1984) described as tactical behaviour that assesses the situation at hand, select a most appropriate action from ranges of plans, and then of executing that choice. It is continual and dynamic decision-making as the combatant interacts with his environment or situation. Intelligence also provides the agent or combatant the understanding to predict possible circumstances or effect of his actions or whatever happens to the situation with or without his contribution (Gonzalez et al, 2005). While there is less technology utilized in the last world war, intelligent tactic definitely played vital role in the Allies’ capturing of many key areas of France, and soon, marched to Germany. It proved that despite the possible dangers of being out-forced or outnumbered, the Allies were able to surmount the war. The 28 Rules of Ranging by Robert Rogers The Rules of Ranging was created by French Major Robert Rogers around 1759 written as guerrilla warfare to defeat the natives of America. They form part of the Standing Orders for US rangers until today. It prescribes that all soldiers be subject to the rules and articles of war, be in order and parade for inspection as expected by their officers; follow marching guidelines in enemy camp to be at a distance and able to signal the officer for enemy approaching and their number; avoid tracking signs in enemy camps and be undetected as much as possible; be alert as lookout for the troop; separate enemy prisoners until properly examined; take precautionary routes different from where previously taken and be able to alter course or disperse at any time; division of troops should keep a lookout or guards on the front and rear to avoid ambuscade; when fired down by enemy, must be quick to fall or squat down then rise and discharge as necessary but with the precaution to protect the flank; in advancing towards the enemy, the soldiers should take turn from the front to fire and fall down then let the rear move through while sustaining constant fire; if the enemy retreats, the troop should be careful in pursuing and keep from being seen; in case the troop should retreat, make for the best ground by letting the front fire and fall down and the rear move about until all are on safe ground; if the enemy overpowers, the body should disperse and meet at designated rendezvous at night time but altered every morning; when surrounded, form a square or circle to make a stand until darkness will allow escape; when attacked, the body should face the enemy but retain flank guards; in rallying after a retreat, the body should do it when in raised ground; when pushed by enemy, the soldier must reserve fire until the enemy is very near and then attack by surprise (Roger’s Rangers, 2011) . Conclusion As discussed, there are various military tactics that are employed over time and depending on the situation by combatants and their officers. These are developed during their training, briefings, and exercises as long as it was provided, but some evolved depending on the soldiers’ or officers’ experience in battle. Previously, number and force were utilized extensively in warfare. This may still be useful until today but it will depend entirely on the situation. As new forms of armaments and intelligence emerged, military tactics and strategy were not left behind. In many instances, military technologies preceded much advancement in history. Thus, intelligent methods have also appeared, used, and now continuously evolving. Intelligent tactic today provides an undisputable place in military strategy. In fact, it has evolved to encompass prevention of war, or winning the war in a peaceful manner. This can be said about the Cold War. And if the leaders were listening, this same tactic can be applied to many more wars to come whatever the nature they will be. Military force is a reflection of a nation’s capability and will remain so. But force can also be expressed as well as implemented intelligently. Intelligence will inform even humble soldiers that minimal loss in war is the best way of winning. Therefore, intelligent tactic is best to prevail, and this means bloodless wars will be the best options. Reference: Bakan, David. 1982. The interface between war and the social sciences. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 22, 11-12 Curahee, __. 2008. Every Citizen A Soldier. Accessed May 2011 from http://www.everycitizenasoldier.org/index.html Gonzalez, Avelino J., Jose Castro and William Gerber. 2005. Automating the Acquisition of Tactical Knowledge for Military Missions. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 2: 145 Hart, Gary, 1980. Toward a New Consensus on Defense. Strategic Review, Fall 1980, pp. 9-14. Hart, Roland J. and Robert H. Sulzen. 1988. Comparing Success Rates In Simulated Combat: Intelligent Tactics vs Force. Armed Forces & Society 14: 273 Holloway, Bruce K. 1979. United States Grand Strategy for the Next Ten Years’, in Holloway et al., Grand Strategy for the 1980s American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington (2nd printing), 1979, p. 19. Osgood, Robert Endicott . 1962. NATO. The Entangling Alliance, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Roger’s Rangers. 2011. The Roles of Ranging. Accessed from http://rogers_rangers_pa_co.tripod.com/id6.html Thorndike, P. W., and K. T. Wescourt. 1984. Modeling Time-Stressed Situation Assessment and Planning for Intelligent Opponent Simulation. Final Technical Report PPAFTR-1124- 84-1, Sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, July Read More