The principle of mass, more so than any other U.S. principle of war, has evolved to accommodate changes in warfare capabilities, doctrine, and strategy. Despite the views of some officers, the principle of mass is not dead; in contrast, the current U.S. joint definition has actually improved on previous definitions with the change from a combat power focus to a focus on effects of combat power. The current definition conveys not only the intent of the theorists, but acknowledges the reality of the way U.S. military operations will be conducted in the 21st century. Far from being irrelevant, the principle of mass should be understood in terms of its components: (1) effects - not forces, (2) place and time, (3) joint integration, and (4) synchronization. (29 refs.).
Principle of Mass Understood: A Qualitative Analysis for the Operational Planner
2004
25 pages
Report
No indication
English
Military Operations, Strategy, & Tactics , Combat effectiveness , Military doctrine , Mass , Joint military activities , Position(Location) , Military strategy , Theory , Integration , Military capabilities , Precision , History , Timeliness , Qualitative analysis , Joint combat power , Massing effects , Effects of combat power , Joint pub 1-02 , Joint pub 3-0 , Synchronization , Military theory , Principle of mass , Principle of concentration , Effects based operations , Place and time , Joint integration , Parallel warfare , Principles of war
NTIS | 2015
|