Chapter X: Section III: deals with the fundamental considerations having (2)

Thus, forces composed of appropriate types and suitably equipped and trained may exercise greater effect than numerically larger forces not so well adjusted to the requirements of the situation. On the other hand, numerical considerations become predominant under conditions otherwise substantially equal.

These considerations, viewed in the light of the relationship of naval operations to land areas (page 63), indicate the importance which may attach to immediate availability, with a naval force, in addition to its own air strength, of a proper complement of land forces (with appropriate air strength) which are organized, equipped, and trained for amphibious operations.

The same considerations point also to the vital importance of due provision, with respect to the armed forces of a State, for joint operations involving concerted action on land, by sea, or in the air.

In connection with the capabilities of particular commanders (page 66), it will be appreciated how important it is, more especially in amphibious or joint operations, for responsible officers to have a correct understanding of the powers and limitations of the several types of military forces involved, be their primary medium of movement the land, the sea, or the air.

Factors of dispersion and concentration are also involved in apportionment of fighting strength.

While undue dispersion may result in lack of adequate fighting strength where required, a certain degree of dispersion may be necessary to meet the demands of movement and of freedom of action. Serious errors in this regard, however, may result in inability to furnish support where needed, and in consequent punishment or isolation of one or more valuable detachments.

In distant operations some dispersion is required to safeguard long lines of communication. The requirements for this purpose may sometimes be so great that, unless the total available strength is adequate, a due apportionment to the guarding of long lines of communication may so weaken the main force as to prevent the attainment of the objective. (See also page 63.)

Proper dispersion is, therefore, a requirement to be met, while undue dispersion is to be avoided. But realization is also necessary, in this connection, that there is an equal danger in over-concentration. An undue concentration of means at any point may subject such a force to unnecessary loss. Another disadvantage may be lack of adequate fighting strength elsewhere.

Accordingly, axiomatic advice that it is unwise to divide a total force, while containing a sound element of caution, is misleading and inadequate, for division is often necessary or desirable. To be adequate, a maxim or rule relating to division of force should indicate when, and in what measure, such division may or may not be necessary or desirable. (See also page 25.)

Similarly inadequate, however true as a generality, is the statement that the requirements of effective warfare are met by bringing superiority to bear at the decisive time and place. Such an injunction is of little assistance in solving practical problems as to the appropriate degree of superiority, and as to the proper time and place.

In like manner, any rule is faulty which advises a commander to seek the solution of his problems by always bringing to bear his elements of strength against the hostile elements of weakness. It may be found, on occasion, that it is necessary or desirable to act with strength against strength.

But it is equally faulty to maintain that action, to be effective, seeks always to deal with the enemy by first destroying his elements of strength. Even when the strongest opposition cannot be defeated by direct action of this nature, success may still be possible by first disposing of elements of weakness. When the stronger elements of a hostile combination cannot be defeated without undue loss, yet cannot stand without the weaker, consideration may well be given to an apportionment of fighting strength on the basis of seeking a decision against the latter. The defeat of a relatively small force at a distance from the area where the main forces are concentrated in opposition, may hasten the attainment of the ultimate objective.

The main effort, where the greater force is employed, may be identical with the effort contributing most directly to the final result. This identity, however, does not always exist, and the decisive influence is frequently exerted by a relatively small force, sometimes at a distance from the principal area of action.

Diversions (see also as to feints, page 59) are not likely to be profitable unless constituting a sufficient threat, or unless offering apparent advantages to the enemy which he feels that he cannot forego. Success will attend justified diversions if they lead the enemy to reapportion his fighting strength to meet the threat, either because he expects repetitions (see page 73, as to raids), or because the area involved may become a new theater of action, or for other pertinent reasons.

Means which are inadequate for the attainment of an objective if used in one effort may sometimes be rendered adequate by utilizing them in a series of successive impulses. Similarly, the effect of employing means otherwise adequate may be intensified by the delivery of attacks in waves.

Procedure for Determining Proper Apportionment. The fundamental considerations outlined above as to apportionment of fighting strength have application both to the offensive and the defensive (see also discussion on page 75). As to all of these considerations, the solution for the particular situation is to be found only through an analysis of the factors applying to the particular problem.

Thus, the first consideration relates to suitability, and requires that the apportionment of means be suitable both as to type and as to amount, in order to produce the appropriate effect desired in view of the means opposed and of the influence of the characteristics of the theater. The fundamentals involved, applicable in all human activities (see the Principle of the Proper Means to be Made Available--page 34), are the factors cited above. These are also, of course, indicated in the Fundamental Military Principle.

The correct apportionment may also be influenced by any military changes to be effected in the characteristics of the theater (as indicated in the Principle of Proper Physical Conditions to be Established--page 34). Thus, the establishment of a well defended base may operate, properly, to reduce the requirements for apportionment of a force for a particular duty in that locality. Similarly, the proper use of fortifications, obstacles, demolitions, and routes by land, sea, and air, as well as facilities for exchange of information and orders, all operate to increase fighting strength relative to that of the enemy.

The next consideration, that of feasibility, takes account of the type and of the amount of means that can be apportioned in view of the means available.

In connection with the foregoing there will be appropriate requirements for the operation as a whole and for its component operations. All of these requirements may call for analysis of the relative positions to be utilized, with reference to the selected physical objectives, and of the requirements for adequate freedom of action.

Finally, the requirement of acceptability as to the factor of consequences will call for consideration of the results of the allotments of forces to particular tasks. This is necessary in order to arrive at reasonable conclusions as to the military costs involved either in event of the success of the effort or in event of its failure, and with respect, more especially, to the effects on future action.

The attainment of the objective, however suitable as to the effect desired, may be found, on the basis of due study, to be infeasible or to involve unacceptable consequences. The inescapable conclusion is then that an increase in relative fighting strength is required or that another objective, feasible of attainment and acceptable with respect to consequences, is necessarily to be adopted (see page 52-53).

Freedom of Action

Fundamental Considerations. In providing for proper apportionment of fighting strength, a commander may attain the end in view by increasing the physical, mental, or moral elements of his own strength, relative to the enemy's, or by decreasing the enemy's strength through imposing restrictions on hostile freedom of action.

Freedom of action will enable a commander to prosecute his plan in spite of restrictive influences. That enemy interference will, to a greater or less extent, impose restrictions on freedom of action is to be expected. Restrictions may also be imposed by physical conditions existing in the theater of operations, and by deficiencies and omissions which are within the field of responsibility of the commander to correct.

Even with fighting strength adequate to overcome enemy opposition and physical handicaps, deficiencies and omissions within a commander's own field may become effective checks to further progress unless avoided through the exercise of foresight. To this end, it is desirable to consider certain possibilities which are likely to promote freedom of action if properly exploited, and to restrict it if neglected.

To a considerable extent, a commander has within his own control the degree of influence which his force will exert in the creation or the maintenance of a favorable military situation. The power applied by a military force is determined not only by the fighting strength of its component commands, but also by the degree of coordination of their several efforts in the attainment of the objective (see also page 12). Whatever the inability of the commander to influence the other aspects of a situation, the ability of his command to act unitedly is a matter largely in his hands.

When time permits, subordinate commanders, apprised of contemplated tasks in general terms, may be called upon to submit recommendations as to the detailed instructions to be issued them, as well (page 66) as to the means to be allotted for the purpose. By this procedure, individual initiative (page 15) is fostered and the higher command enabled to utilize the first-hand knowledge and experience gained on lower echelons without, however, divesting the higher command of any of its responsibility.

The command system may provide for unified action through unity of command or through cooperation resulting from mutual understanding. On the assumption that commanders are competent and that communications are adequate, unity of command is the more reliable method. However, it cannot be obtained everywhere and at all times, because of the necessary decentralization of the command system in areas distant from the commander. In such areas, unity of effort may sometimes be assured by provision for local unity of command. At other times, unity of effort may depend entirely on cooperation between adjacent commands within the same area. (See page 12.)

Organization (see page 13), the mechanism of command, is most effective when, through the establishment of authority commensurate with responsibility (page 12) and through the assignment of tasks to commanders with appropriate capabilities (see also page 66), the highest possible degree of unity of command is attained. The command organization and mutual understanding are of primary importance as methods of ensuring maximum power with available fighting strength, and of affording consequent maximum contribution to freedom of action.

Deficiencies in technical training are capable of imposing grave restrictions upon freedom of action. Material equipment, even though it may represent the acme of perfection in design and construction, will not surely function unless skillfully operated and maintained. Even though mobility and endurance be otherwise assured, the capacity which they represent is not susceptible of effective employment unless the methods of movement, i.e., of effecting change in relative position (page 59), are intelligently planned and are developed to a point which assures facility of operation when in the hands of skilled personnel.

Tactical training, not omitting that required for joint operations (page 67), is one of the vital factors of fighting strength, with respect, more especially, to its contributions to freedom of action.

A state of high and stable morale (page 9), founded upon sound discipline, is an invaluable characteristic of fighting strength. An understanding of the human being is therefore an important feature of the science of war.

Discipline, in its basic meaning, is the treatment suitable to a disciple. The objective of discipline is therefore the creation and maintenance of the spirit of willingness to follow where the commander leads. The exercise of leadership is not restricted, however, to those occasions when the commander can be physically present. The exigencies of war and the requirements of control prevent the commander from being always, personally, in the forefront of action. These restrictions as to considerations of space however, impose no limitations on leadership in terms of time.

The influence of the competent commander is a factor always acting to shape the situation according to his will (page 47), though the necessities of the moment may compel his presence elsewhere. The ability to create and maintain a faithful following who will execute the commander's will wherever he may be (page 15) is, accordingly, a primary attribute of command.

With this objective in mind, the true disciplinarian runs no risk of confusing harshness with the exercise of justice. He understands the difference between an overbearing arrogance, arising from unconscious ignorance, and the pride which springs from a justified self-respect. He appreciates the distinction between mere stubbornness, which would alienate his followers, and the necessary firmness which binds the bonds between the leader and the led. He realizes that comradeship, without presumptuous familiarity, is the firmest foundation for mutual loyalty (page 14). He knows that kindness and consideration, without suggestion of pampering, will not be mistaken for weakness by any subordinate worthy of the name.

Military subordination, which implies a proud obedience without trace of servility, is the essential basis for the development of the qualities of command. It is an old adage that, to know how to command, one must know how to obey. In the profession of arms, every man is at once a leader and a follower; the uncertainties of war may suddenly confront any individual, even on the lowest echelon, with the call to exercise command.

The requirements of sound discipline are thus the correct basis for all training. By proper training of his command, by instilling in it a spirit of resolute determination and by otherwise fostering its morale, and by weakening the morale of the enemy, a commander may increase his own fighting strength and reduce that of the opposition. When a command is inured to the ill effects of fear, despondency, lack of confidence, and other weakening influences, it may more effectually employ measures calculated to upset the morale of the enemy.

In connection with these measures, surprise, when judiciously conceived and successfully employed, may be a most potent factor. Surprise (see page 26) is the injection of the unexpected for the purpose of creating an unfavorable military situation for the enemy. Its effect is particularly telling when it results in disruption of enemy plans, and thus promotes the execution of one's own.

The raid, an offensive measure swiftly executed, often by surprise, and followed by a withdrawal, may be a valuable operation when employed to attain objectives within its capacity. The collection of information, the destruction of important enemy equipment or supplies, the neutralization of enemy positions, the severing of physical means of communication and transport, and the like, are suitable objectives. The attritional effect of repeated raids may be very great. Skillfully executed raids frequently produce panic among the populace and thus, by political pressure, cause a change in the existing apportionment of fighting strength to the extent of upsetting military plans in other theaters. This is particularly likely to occur when there is fear, justified or otherwise, of repetition (see page 69).

However, because a raid necessarily includes a withdrawal and cannot, therefore, accomplish the occupation of territory (see page 46), it can have only indirect bearing, however important, upon the final outcome of the hostilities against a strong and competent enemy. Like other forms of surprise, the raid, injudiciously employed, may serve only to disclose one's presence, and thus to betray more important future plans. If the raid fails to attain its objective, it may even strengthen enemy morale.

The form which surprise may take is not confined to the stratagem, the ruse, or the sudden appearance. Any unexpected display of novel methods or of fighting strength, moral, mental, or physical, the last-named sometimes assuming the character of new and especially effective weapons or equipment, is included in the category of surprise. The potential value of such methods or weapons is, however, reduced or even completely vitiated by the leakage of advance information concerning them, not only as to their details, but as to the fact of their existence.

Other conditions remaining unchanged, an offensive surprise measure is therefore more likely to be effective when the opponent has not been given time to prepare a defense against it. On the other hand, where there is knowledge that an opponent or possible opponent is taking steps of a new or unusual nature and no adequate defense is prepared, the equivalent of surprise has been granted him.

Security measures are necessary in order to minimize or prevent surprise, or to defeat other efforts aimed at disruption of plans. Protection brings security; its basic objective is the conservation of fighting strength for future employment. Primarily requiring the maintenance of secrecy and the exercise of vigilance and foresight, security may be furthered by efficient scouting, by appropriate dispositions and formations within the command, and by the use of protective detachments and of various types of works in the sphere of engineering. Previous discussion (pages 64 and 69), with respect to relative position and to the apportionment of fighting strength, has indicated how, through fortification and related measures, the commander may increase relative fighting strength and thereby promote his own freedom of action while restricting that of the enemy.

A commander will be hampered in maintaining his fighting strength at its maximum unless he has arranged for, and has at his disposal, adequate logistics support. Because of its intimate relationship to mobility and endurance, such support is an essential to freedom of action. Logistics support requires provision for procurement and replenishment of supplies, for evacuation, proper disposition, and replacement of ineffective personnel, and for material maintenance. Freedom of action is restricted beyond those limits to which logistics support can be extended. (See page 63.)

The initiative is of paramount importance in ensuring freedom of action. If the initiative is seized and maintained with adequate strength, the enemy can only conform; he cannot lead. If initiative is lost, freedom of action is restricted in like measure.

The offensive, properly employed, is a method of seizing the initiative, and of regaining it if lost. Even though there be an actual numerical superiority in fighting strength, an offensive will, however, seldom assume practical form unless founded on an offensive mental attitude, which ever seeks the favorable and suitable opportunity to strike. Completely to abandon the offensive state of mind is to forswear victory.

Whether physically on the defensive or the offensive, the competent commander is always engaged in a mental and moral attack upon the will of the enemy commander (see page 8). By effective attack upon the hostile will, the commander disintegrates the enemy's plan, i.e., the enemy's reasoned decision, as well as the detailed procedure on which the enemy relies to carry this decision into effect.

It does not follow that offensive action is possible or even desirable under all circumstances. Even with superior strength the most skillful commander will scarcely be able, always, to apportion forces in such manner as everywhere to permit the assumption of the offensive. Without adequately superior strength, it may be necessary to adopt the defensive for considerable periods. If the offensive mental attitude is retained, together with fixed determination to take offensive measures as soon as appropriate to do so, the calculated and deliberate adoption of the defensive, for the proper length of time, may best promote the ultimate attainment of the objective. It is of the utmost importance, however, that a static defensive be not adopted as a settled procedure (see page 65) beyond the time necessary to prepare for an effective offensive.

Both the offensive and the defensive have their places in an operation whose broad character is primarily either defensive or offensive. In operations which involve movement over a considerable distance, a combination of the offensive and the defensive is usually found necessary (see also references to distant operations on pages 63 and 74). Though the movement itself be offensive, the ensurance of freedom of action may require both defensive measures and tactically offensive action. The enemy, primarily on the defensive, may be expected to seize every opportunity to employ the offensive.

Thus, a judicious combination of the offensive and the defensive has been found to be sound procedure (see also page 61), provided that the general defensive is always viewed as a basis for the inauguration, at the proper moment, of the offensive. The methods employed during the period of the defensive are best calculated to promote freedom of action if they are designed to facilitate a ready assumption of the offensive as soon as conditions favorable to the offensive have been created.

Familiarity with the physical characteristics of the actual and possible theaters of operations, and accurate intelligence of the strength, distribution, and activities of enemy forces likely to be encountered, are of primary importance in the promotion of freedom of action. Additions to this store of knowledge may be made by a continuous interpretation and dissemination of new information collected, analyzed, and evaluated by persistent effort. Of equal importance is the denial of information to the enemy.

In connection with counter-information measures (see page 127), the scrutiny of information of a military nature intended for popular consumption demands the exercise of sound professional judgment prior to publication. A resourceful enemy is ever alert to evaluate and turn to his own advantage all available information, including that ostensibly innocuous.

As to all of the foregoing considerations, a fund of professional knowledge, previously acquired through study, or experience, or both, and coupled with a sound concept of war, is the best basis for devising suitable, feasible, and acceptable measures for freedom of action.

With a given fighting strength, the ensurance of freedom of action, within the field of responsibility of a commander, requires consideration of such matters as:

(a) Efficient provisions for exercise of command,
(b) Effective training,
(c) A state of high and stable morale, founded on
(d) sound discipline,
(e) The offensive spirit,
(f) The initiative,
(g) Surprise,
(h) Security,
(i) Adequate logistics support,
(j) Adequate intelligence and counter-intelligence.

A more detailed analysis of such factors is provided hereafter (Chapter VI, as to Section I-B of the Estimate Form). With proper provision made in these respects, the commander will be better able to deal with those restrictions on freedom of action imposed by the enemy and by adverse geographical conditions. With respect to restrictions that in a particular situation may be due to the latter cause, it will at once be appreciated how greatly freedom of action may depend on the selection of correct physical objectives, on utilization of advantageous relative positions, and on an effective apportionment of fighting strength.

Each measure, or each operation, for freedom of action, if it is to meet the requirements of suitability, feasibility, and acceptability, will be planned on the basis of the foregoing considerations and will take account, also, of the inherent requirements of that measure, or operation, for freedom of action for itself.

On occasion, higher authority may request the recommendations of the commander (see page 42, as to opinions) with reference to provision for freedom of action. Such recommendations will properly be based on the elements considered in the preceding discussion.

IV. SUMMARY

All these considerations involve the proper evaluation of the factors applicable (page 25) to the particular problem. Each objective, prior to its selection, and each operation, prior to its adoption, will require examination of its suitability with regard to the appropriate effect desired; of its feasibility with respect to the action contemplated as to physical objectives, relative positions, the concurrent apportionment of fighting strength, and freedom of action; and, finally, of its acceptability with reference to consequences as to costs.

CHAPTER V

THE FOUR STEPS IN THE SOLUTION OF A MILITARY PROBLEM