As noted with respect to the Fundamental Military Principle (page 41), the effort required for the attainment of a military objective involves military operations (page 37), whose salient features are listed in the Principle. These features, including physical objectives, relative positions, apportionment of fighting strength, and freedom of action, will now be discussed to indicate how they are correctly determined by the factors, also cited in the Principle, pertaining to suitability, feasibility, and acceptability. Such determination is accomplished through application of the corollary Principle of Effective Military Operations (page 42).
Fundamental Considerations. An operation, however splendidly conceived and faultlessly executed, involves waste of effort if directed with relation to wrong physical objectives.
Since a physical objective constitutes the tangible focus of effort (page 47) toward the attainment of the effect desired, its correct determination is of paramount importance both before and during the prosecution of operations.
As has been demonstrated (page 51), the consideration of possible physical objectives (in space) is essential to the selection of suitable objectives (in mind). Moreover, action with reference to one or more physical objectives is the necessary basis for determining the feasibility and acceptability of a plan.
Military objectives can be achieved only through the application of power, actually or by threat (page 8), with reference to physical objectives.
The determination of correct physical objectives is followed, if more than one such objective is found, by the selection of the one or more which are best adapted to the requirements of the situation. The procedure for determination and for selection is a matter for painstaking mental effort, based on the considerations now to be presented.
The term "military objective" is frequently used in military literature to distinguish physical objectives which are combatant in character from those which are noncombatant. The considerations which follow are applicable to physical objectives of all categories.
Procedure for Determination and Selection of Correct Physical Objectives. In a particular set of circumstances, the field wherein correct physical objectives may be found and the best selected, is that of an existent or probable theater of action.
The determination of a physical objective, when correct, initially satisfies the requirement of suitability with respect to the nature of the objective,—this being, in such case, the appropriate effect desired (page 31). Physical objectives not suitable, with relation to the objective to be attained, are manifestly incorrect physical points of orientation with respect to the operations involved in the effort to attain such an objective.
It may be found, however, that the selection of a single physical objective will not fulfill this requirement. A commander may find it necessary to direct his effort simultaneously, or in succession, with relation to more than one physical objective.
When a succession of physical objectives has to be dealt with, the selection will necessarily include such a series. Such a case might occur where a campaign has been found necessary in the form of successive stages as essential features. The visualized termination of each successive stage may be marked by the successful application of effort with respect to one or more physical objectives. Such a series of physical objectives may frequently also occur in operations on a smaller scale; even in very minor actions such a succession of efforts is normal. (See page 54, as to objectives.)
The choice as to the specific nature of physical objectives will extend, for example, from the enemy's organized forces as a whole to the physical body of an individual combatant. Within this range will be included all manner of physical elements of enemy fighting strength, singly and in combination, such as troops, ships, geographical points, lines and areas, fortifications, bases, and supplies.
The physical objective may take the form of a fixed geographical position, the occupation of which, because of its inherent advantages, may be, for example, an essential preliminary to further progress. The position may, for instance, be merely a point in the ocean (page 47), a rendezvous beyond which, although its occupation may be uncontested, it has been deemed unwise to proceed without further information or additional strength.
The physical objective, therefore, does not always take the form of some element of the enemy fighting strength; not infrequently, the occupation of a correct physical objective may be uncontested by the enemy. However, intervening armed forces of the enemy may constitute the physical objective for application of successful effort before a further physical objective may be dealt with. The possibility of enemy opposition may, therefore, place the selection of one or more physical objectives on an indeterminable basis at the time of the original solution of the problem. This may require a commander to defer his choice until the situation has become more fully developed.
For example, his objective may be the occupation of a certain harbor, preliminary to the establishment of a base. The harbor is then a correct physical objective, perhaps the only physical objective which need be dealt with, if there are no other obstacles to prevent or interrupt the operation. Armed forces of the enemy may, however, stand as an obstacle to the undisputed occupation of the harbor and, therefore, to the attainment of the objective. In such case they become, for the time being, the correct physical objective.
While the armed forces of the enemy may frequently present appropriate physical objectives, this is not always the case (see above). It is true that, in war, the armed forces of the enemy, until they can no longer offer effective resistance, prevent the full attainment of the objective of the State. Accordingly, from the broad viewpoint, they may constitute the legitimate and proper physical objective of the opposing armed forces. Armed forces of the enemy which are present in opposition to any projected operations are likely to offer proper physical objectives.
These facts, however, do not restrict a commander, in his choice of a physical objective, to the armed forces of the enemy. Nor do these considerations require him to search for and destroy the enemy forces before directing his effort toward the attainment of an objective under circumstances where the enemy is seen to be incapable of presenting effective opposition.
The correct physical objective may change several times during the course of an operation. This is particularly to be expected in a naval tactical engagement of considerable scope. While the enemy fleet, as a whole, may properly be considered in such a case to be the physical objective, the component parts of each fleet, the types of vessels and their combinations, may, from time to time, find in their opponents a variety of physical objectives, the particular identity of which can scarcely be predicted with assurance. It is here that the importance of the correct selection of physical objectives stands out in bold relief.
Infliction of loss on enemy forces, or support of own forces hard pressed, may always seem tempting immediate objectives in war. However, there may be occasions when disengagement or refusal to engage an enemy force, even though it be of manifestly inferior strength, may be appropriate to the attainment of the end in view. Necessity for speed or secrecy, or other demands, may make the required operations unacceptable. (See page 75 as to the offensive and the defensive.)
Land, as the natural habitat of man (page 46), is always the principal store-house of his indispensable resources, as well as the primary scene of his activities. Naval operations, therefore, have always in view the eventual maintenance or creation of a favorable military situation in critical land areas. From this fundamental viewpoint, the eventual physical objective of military operations is always a land objective.
The suitability of a physical objective having been determined, the next consideration is the feasibility (page 31) of taking such action, with relation thereto, as will, if successful, attain the objective in mind. Feasibility is determined by evaluation of the factors of means available and opposed, as influenced by the characteristics of the theater, in order to assess relative fighting strength (see page 52). In connection with the effort involved with relation to any physical objective, questions of feasibility may make it desirable or necessary to visualize the detailed operations which arise from considerations of relative position, of apportionment of fighting strength, and of provision for freedom of action.
Of particular interest with respect to such operations, it is noted that the premature disclosure of a selected physical objective is a military error. By appearing, however, to operate against more than one physical objective, a commander may lead the enemy to overstrain his resources in the effort to protect them all. Thus the commander may reduce the resistance to be encountered in dealing with what have already, or may finally, become the selected physical objectives. Feints in several directions may even divert all of the enemy's effective defense from the vital points (see also page 68).
After the suitability of a physical objective has been established, as well as the feasibility of the contemplated action with relation thereto, such action is next considered from the standpoint of acceptability with reference to the consequences as to costs. The specific factors involved in acceptability as to consequences have previously been mentioned (page 31).
When the requirements of suitability, feasibility, and acceptability have been satisfied, the locality, the opposing force, or other subject of consideration may be regarded as a correct physical objective.
When more than one correct physical objective has been determined and a choice is indicated, such selection will also be founded on the foregoing requirements.
No doctrine, no advance instructions, can replace the responsible judgment of a commander as to his correct physical objectives. On occasion, higher authority may request recommendations (see page 42, as to opinions) with respect to such objectives. The duty of a commander to depart from his instructions under certain conditions, and the grave responsibility which he thereby assumes, have also been referred to (page 16).
Fundamental Considerations. The relative positions occupied or susceptible of occupancy by armed forces are matters which demand constant and intelligent attention before and during hostilities. Being fruitful sources of advantage or disadvantage, such relative positions assume primary importance where enemy forces are concerned, and are scarcely of less importance from the standpoint of the correct apportionment of the subdivisions of one's own forces, and from the viewpoint of their freedom of action.
During periods of actual tactical contact, the successful delivery of the decisive thrust against selected physical objectives is greatly furthered by the occupancy and maintenance of advantageous relative positions.
The fundamental significance of relative position lies in the fact that position is the basis of movement, for movement is merely a change of position. Speed is the rate at which movement takes place. The particular factors to be reckoned with are, therefore, time and space. In skillful utilization of these elements lies the successful employment of relative position in the creation or maintenance of a favorable military situation, whether the movement be by land, sea, or air (page 46).
The necessity for movement may be an important consideration in determining possible or likely theaters of operations. Where transportation between two or more positions within a certain area is essential to the successful conduct of a war, the area which includes the routes between these positions, or a portion of such routes, becomes at once a possible or likely theater. Such an area may be normally within the control of one or the other of the belligerents, or the control may be in dispute. Certain of the positions themselves may belong to neither of the belligerents. The area itself may be a land area, or a sea area, or a combination of the two. It may be an area which borders upon the sea, or an island area. In any case, the air is a common characteristic.
The movement of a force is properly regarded, not as an even flow, but as a series of steps from one position to another. The movement may or may not be continuous. Pauses are usual, their occurrence and duration being a matter dependent upon circumstances and calling for the exercise of sound professional judgment. Intermediate positions may be utilized, successively, so as to facilitate occupancy of the final position which is the goal of that phase of operations (page 56). This procedure often effects an ultimate saving of time. In many cases, other advantages also may accrue.
The foregoing considerations are applicable to changes of position whether in the direction of the enemy, toward a flank, or to the rear. Flanking maneuvers and retrograde movements, both sometimes profitably employed to decoy the enemy, may frequently be utilized to gain advantageous relative position. The proper objective of each is the maintenance of a favorable situation, or the alteration of an unfavorable one, either locally or with reference to the larger phases of operations, through measures involving apportionment of fighting strength, or obtaining advantages of position, or retaining or gaining freedom of action. Combinations of forward, flanking, or retrograde movements are frequent in war, the skillful combination of the offensive and the defensive (see page 75) being no less applicable to the problem of relative position than to the other elements of a favorable military operation.
Procedure for Determination and Selection of Advantageous Relative Positions. Since the various positions to be occupied become physical objectives for the time being, their proper determination and selection are governed by the same considerations which apply to physical objectives (see page 55 and following).
Thus, it becomes necessary to consider, first, as to suitability, whether the position, once gained, will permit the attainment of the appropriate effect desired.
Secondly, consideration is required as to feasibility. Are the available means adequate to gain or to maintain such position? In answering this question, due regard is paid to opposing means and to the characteristics of the theater.
Finally, there is to be considered, as to acceptability, whether the consequences as to costs, in terms of relative fighting strength, will be such, if the position is gained or maintained, as to permit the attainment of the objective. The possible effect of these consequences on future action, whether the attempt succeeds or fails, may be vitally significant.
With regard to suitability, the factor of the appropriate effect desired calls for special consideration of the requirements with a view to future action. This is true because of the relationship which naturally exists between successive positions (page 60) if changes of location from one to another are to be integrated into movement calculated to accomplish the effect desired. Each position, itself for the time being a physical objective, offers certain advantages or involves certain disadvantages with relation to a further physical objective. The position of the latter, in turn, presents possibilities (or denies them) with respect to future movement. The influence of considerations with respect to time (in addition to those noted above with regard to space) is also a factor whose importance increases when urgency is a matter of immediate concern.
With regard to feasibility, the technical capabilities and limitations of the armed forces (page 67) are, of course, among the principal factors. These capabilities and limitations are respectively promoted and imposed primarily by considerations peculiar to the particular medium of movement involved.
With specific regard to the areas within which military operations may suitably be undertaken, the fundamental distinctions created by recognized political sovereignty require attention. That part of the surface of the earth which comprises its land area is recognized as the property or the charge of one or another of the sovereign states, although in certain cases the title may be in dispute. The air above a nation's territorial domain is generally understood to be part of that domain. The point to be observed is that there are no land areas which belong equally to all nations. Accordingly; because of the factor of neutral sovereignty, both land and air forces of belligerent States may be under the necessity of following indirect routes to their physical objectives.
In the case of the sea, however, all those portions of the earth's surface which are covered by water (exclusive only of the recognized territorial waters of the several nations), i.e., the high seas, are presumably common property. The same applies to the air above the sea.
These considerations, and the fact that the surface of the sea is a broad plane, permit open sea areas to be traversed by a variety of routes to an extent not applicable in the case of land areas and the air above them. In addition, the fact that technological developments have been such as to permit movement, not only on the surface of the sea and through the air above but also beneath the surface, gives distinctive characteristics to the sea when considered as a theater of operations.
The surface of the sea has, from the earliest days to the present, provided roads over which human beings in greatest numbers and the resources of the world in greatest weight and volume can be transported in single carriers. From the standpoint of any belligerent it is imperative that, during war, these roads be kept open to the extent demanded by the needs of the State. It is equally imperative that an enemy be deprived of the advantage which their use might otherwise afford. In both cases localized (even though temporary) control, not only of the surface but of the water beneath and the air above, may be essential. It is pertinent, also, to note at this point the interest of neutrals, or of unneutral nonbelligerent Powers, in keeping open the trade routes via the high seas. Such interest may constitute an important factor in the calculations of a belligerent State.
Considerations of maximum capacity for speed represent the utmost possibilities with respect to movements (i.e., change of positions) (page 60) in a given medium within a given time limit. A knowledge of maximum speed potentialities, one's own and those of the enemy, is required if changes in position are intelligently to be made. A knowledge of the variety of conditions, controllable and otherwise, which affect or preclude the employment of maximum speed, is likewise a requisite. Poor material condition, inadequate training, and incorrect methods of operation are preventable or correctable. The limitations on speed which are imposed by logistics, and by natural obstacles such as the hydrography, the climate, the wind, the weather, and the state of the sea, are susceptible of greatest possible adjustment to circumstances only by the exercise of foresight and judgment. All these conditions indicate the close relationship that exists between relative position and freedom of action (page 70).
The same observations apply to considerations of maximum capacity for endurance, the ability to operate without necessity for replenishment from an outside source. Radius of action is decreased or increased accordingly with resultant restrictions, or otherwise, on freedom of action.
With respect to the freedom of action of armed forces, also a consideration in relation to feasibility, the logistics of a military operation, of whatever scope, constitutes a problem which begins when the plan is in process of formulation. This problem ends only when the necessity for sustaining the movement, and for retaining the position gained, no longer exists.
Ships and other means of conveyance, surface, subsurface, and air, are incapable of providing the necessities of life and the implements of warfare beyond the capacity built into them. Operations which extend beyond the limits of such capacity must cease unless replenishment and support, possible only from other sources, are provided. The logistics problem may be so difficult as to cause rejection of a course of action involving distant operations. From the standpoint of supply, military movements by land, sea, and air are, therefore, vitally associated with positions on land and with their relation to the area of operations (see also page 58).
The same observations apply in larger scope to the State itself, which, because of economic vulnerability with respect to certain essential raw materials, may be compelled to seek support from outside sources lest supplies on hand become exhausted. In all cases, great importance attaches to the geographical location of sources of supply in their relation to a required point of delivery and to the routes which lie between.
It follows that enemy sources of supply may be suitable physical objectives (see page 56). Their destruction or capture, or the severance of the enemy's lines of communication with them, may seriously restrict his freedom of action.
From the standpoint of the relative position of its features, and apart from their inherent military value, the characteristics of the theater of military operations may exert an important influence upon the shaping of events. Each characteristic merits consideration as a potential means of facilitating or obstructing movement. Some localities may have been developed as repair, supply, or air bases. Others may be sources of essential raw materials. Certain points may be heavily fortified. Island formations may be valuable to either opponent, or to both, because of the capacity and security of their harbors, the character of their terrain, or their positions relative to each other. The inherent military value of the several features of the theater may be enhanced or vitiated by the relative position which each occupies with respect to other features, and with reference to the location of the armed forces involved.
So-called "strategic points", historically significant in connection with military operations, derive their importance by reason of their relative position with reference to routes of movement.
The possibilities of utilizing or of changing the characteristics of a theater of operations, to assist, hamper, or deny movement, are governed by considerations previously discussed (see the Principle of the Proper Physical Conditions to be established in the Field of Action—page 34).
In planning the creation or maintenance of a favorable military situation from the standpoint of relative position, there may, therefore, profitably be included an examination into:
(a) The relation which may exist between the geographical location of the subdivisions of one's own forces and
(1) Those of the enemy,
(2) Geographical areas under one's own control, and positions within those areas,
(3) Geographical areas not under one's own control, and positions within those areas,
(4) Areas coveted or in dispute,
(5) Fixed actual and potential repair and operating bases and sources of supply and replenishment, own and enemy, controlled or otherwise.
(b) The relation existing among the geographical locations listed immediately above, including the effect of possible changes in control.
(c) The bearing of the sun and moon, and the direction of the wind and sea.
(d) The length and vulnerability of possible lines of communication.
(e) The time and distance, and resulting relative speeds, involved in movements necessary to change or to maintain an existing relation.
(f) The measures incident to adequate freedom of action.
A more detailed analysis of the factors influencing relative position is made in Section I-B of the Estimate Form (Chapter VI).
In connection with the factor of consequences as to costs, the requirement as to acceptability is a weighing of expected gains and of reasonably anticipated losses, a balancing of the one against the other, with due attention to the demands of future action, (see page 61).
Military movement normally involves an inescapable expenditure of military resources. The characteristics of the theater, alone, will exact their due toll, even if no enemy be present. In the presence of the enemy, such expenditures may increase with great rapidity. The fundamental consideration here is whether the resultant losses are disproportionate to the gains.
Avoidance of movement is frequently the correct decision, because movement, if it offers no advantages, is scarcely justifiable even if it entails no material loss. Movement, merely for the sake of moving, is not a profitable military operation. However, the conduct of military operations without major movement is a concept inherently defensive (page 75), even apathetic, whose outcome, against an energetic enemy, can rarely be other than defeat. In the execution of advantageous movement to achieve correct military objectives, the competent commander is always ready to accept the losses which are inseparable from his gains.
The foregoing considerations as to advantageous relative positions are applicable, not only in the realm of the commander's decisions as to his own action, but also to his judgments rendered when higher authority calls for recommendations (see page 42).
Fundamental Considerations. The assignment of a task may be expected to carry with it availability of fighting strength deemed adequate by higher authority for accomplishment of the operation involved.
In appropriate instances, the higher command may call for recommendations as to the amount and character of the means deemed adequate by the subordinate for performance of the task with which he is, or is to be, charged (page 42).
In any case, means having been made available, it remains for a commander to whom an objective has been assigned to apportion these available resources in such manner as to provide the requisite strength at points likely to be decisive, without unduly weakening other points. In effect, he is charged with a practical adjustment of means to ends. This responsibility is discharged by the effective utilization of means and prevention of waste nicely balanced through full consideration of all essential elements of a favorable military operation. The procedure involved has been indicated (see the corollary Principle for the determination of the Proper Means to be Made Available—page 34).
The relation between the strength to be brought to bear in dealing with a selected physical objective, the tactical concern of the moment, and that necessary to the attainment of the strategical aim (see pages 9 and 10), constitutes a fundamental consideration in effecting such a balance.
In making a correct apportionment, there will be involved not only the physical elements of fighting strength, but the mental and moral as well. With respect to mental and moral factors, the capabilities of particular commanders and organizations may be an important factor in apportioning forces to tasks. In the physical field, numbers and types occupy a prominent position, each however, requiring consideration from the standpoint of the existing situation.
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).