Talk:Military science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Soviet (and later CIS) vs. Western military structures
Soviet style looks defense where as Western promotes an offensive style. Is it true and if so, perhaps make a mention? I think it works on two levels. One in theory (how the structures are desrcribed in the article) and practise maybe (NATO, the western model is all offensive).
-G
[edit] six branches
I think the statement that military science has six branches should be deleted, because it is almost certainly POV ( I am sure their are other divisions.)
"Other factors being equal, the simplest plan is preferable. (Occam's Razor)"
Deleted because it is a misunderstanding of occam's razor. Replaced with statement on parsimony.
it is not a science
[edit] Military science & Operational Art
This is the first crack at this topic. My question, is this page a good place for this discussion? The reason I am placing it here, is because I am seeking to cover tactics, op art, and strategy together as a whole. This is military theory, and is just a part of the overall science. Should the topic be split off into other pages, or is that going to risk splintering the entire area into shards so small, it will be next to impossible to get the entire picture? Thoughts?
Another question. Should the info here also be cross posted into the specific sections (and vice versa) on strategy, op art, and tactics? Or is this needlessly cluttering the 'pedia..... Dobbs 15:39 Sep 17, 2002 (UTC)
I'd go with putting most of the stuff in the individual tactics/opart/strategy sections. Things that are common to all three areas, or that describe how the three fit together, should go in here IMO. And I'd certainly not be in favour of redundant "cross posting" - not only is it clutter, but the fragments are likely to get out of step - Khendon 12:24 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)
- A template could be created that links all of the relevant articles/sections, should this main article be split into several. --Impaciente 04:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, wrong post. Then I had to leave town to attend a funeral. :( At least I got the article done. This was the outline for Strategy, which needs to be better linked with Operational Art, and tactics..... More in those sections to follow. Thanks for your edit, sorry I screwed up. Please take a look at the new stuff and tell me what you think.
Dobbs 21:53 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)
Looks really good! :-) - Khendon 09:57 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)
I think quite a lot of the interpretation is a bit flaky. Most countries recognise 'principles of war', those used by UK, US and the like originate with the analysis of JFC Fuller (UK) in the aftermath of WW1, they're broadly similar but have intersting differences (eg UK has always recognised 'maintenance of morale') the PLA's are also similar. France and Russia's are very different and to each other. I also think the assesment of Russia is way off, the quality of their miltary thinking for high intensity warfighting has been extremely good for the last century, even if implementation has had not always kept up. They understood, analysed and practised tempo well before NATO had even heard of it, they originated the term 'operational art', they were the first to document and discuss manouevre warfare (it was US and UK fear of Soviet 'Operational Manaouver Groups' in the 1970s that led to the current thinking), and had a very good grasp of the operational level decades before the west.
Evans
Another thing the Soviets brought to the table was the notion of miitary doctrine. When I prepared a briefiing to the CG of TRADOC (Gen William DePuy) in mid 1975 about the evolution of Soviet tactics I made the point that while the Soviets employed the notion of doctrine in their development of strategy, op art, and tactics, the U.S. military dictionary didn't even include the term 'doctrine.' After a pretty tough session by a couple of principal staff officers, Major Generals, the notion of military doctrine quietly slipped into subsequent op art and tactical evolution.
[edit] military organization
Discussion of military organization in the article overlooks what I believe is the primary purpose of military organization: optimization of weapons employment in combat. This is basically true at the tactical level, but organization of units at the operational art levels, division and higher, is also structured to optimize subordinate unit employment in combat. De Cesare
[edit] not Military science
Military science is the study of the technique, psychology, practice and other phenomena which constitute war and armed conflict.With such a short description of what military science is, would it not add clarity to include what military science is not: Military science is not simply the application of science to military endevours. MCG, 01 Sept 06
[edit] Merging with Principles of War
I don't see any discussion of merging yet, so I'll start. Merging this article with Principles of War would be a bad move. However, there is currently too much information on the Principles of War here which should be moved to that article. The first few sections (organization, education and training, history, geography, and technology and equipment) are good, single paragraph, concise summaries, and link to the more detailed, longer articles. But the strategy and doctrine section is far too voluminous for this article. Instead of merging, move the detailed information to the appropriate article, and write a brief paragraph that summarizes it here. Nathanm mn 16:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur. The principles of war are a topic in their own right. Leaving it in its own page allows for better comparison and contrast of between the differing viewpoints of various militaries (for example, the Soviet's listed Momemtum as a principle and the Israeli's include Fighting Spirit, Depth & Reserve, Trickery (variant of surprise), and Consecutiveness & Continuity. All of these viewpoints can be better discussed relative to one another without the distraction of the details of Military Science. (Raymond Hettinger) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.235.2 (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Military strategy and doctrine
This section is outright dreadful. Two major systems? How about the "Scandinavian" system, where highly trained conscripts are combined with a high ratio of officers? (it is in fact vaugely based on the German "jaeger"(ranger) troops tradition, but extended to encompass the whole military) What about all the third world militaries that draw their main doctrines from elsewhere than "Russian" doctrine? (some are very firepower based, like French and american doctrine for example, others operate more like German recon troops from WWII) Is Iranian and Hezbollah doctrine "western" or "Russian"? Quite obviously neither i would say. (they are more like Scandinavian but not quite to be called the same category) Brazilian or Indian doctrines likewise are also quite departed from either of those categories even if simplified extremely.
Russian vs Western is just an outright wrong way of dividing it up, it was never even truly right during the cold war.
"the russian system borrows from these systems as well"? The Soviet military theories was part of the creation of them both before the different doctrines split up and later, as for example USA has after WWII in a few cases adopted almost unchanged parts of Soviet doctrine. More than the opposite, although thats likely because USSR was less able to make direct use of such due to technical or political reasons.
Modern Russian doctrine is different by far from Soviet doctrine however, therefore bundling together the both is simply terrible. And equating USSR with Russia is simply just very offensive for no good reason.
"Western military doctrine relies heavily..." this part seems more like bragging than any serious differentiating description.
81.224.32.80 (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
