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 a list of open tasks. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
|
Related task forces...
|
|
Contents |
[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.
[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
