Doctrines

[a_majoor]

Canada is officialy comitted to Manouevre Warfare as our doctrine, but there isn't any really succinct descriptions of what it is. This is a related doctrine ("Deep Battle"), for comparison:

Tukhachevskii's Deep Battle theory has five elements:

1) Tactical units are instruments to support operational maneuver;

2) The application of pressure across the maximum area denies the enemy's ability to maneuver in response to a penetration;

3) The greater depth and speed that can be achieved by operational forces increases the lethality and shock to the enemy;

4) Both firepower and ground maneuver can be used interchangeably to increase depth as technology progresses;

5) The depth of the battlefield must be viewed as one continuous operation to insure the commander sees and plans for the final battle both in time and space as well as he plans for the first battle.

Very succinct and easy to understand and apply.

 

[a_majoor]

Futuristic "swarming" doctrines could be developed from this:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.12/warning_pr.html

If national safety - the ability to respond to hurricanes, terrorist attacks, earthquakes - depends on the execution of explicit plans, on soldierly obedience, and on showy security drills, then a decentralized security scheme is useless. But if it depends on improvised reactions to unknown threats, that's a different story. A deeply textured, unmapped system is hard to bring down. A system that encourages improvisation is quick to recover. Ubiquitous networks of warning may constitute our own asymmetrical advantage, and, like the terrorist networks that occasionally carry out spectacular attacks, their power remains obscure until they're called into action.