Datasets:

shearman96

/

tactics-documents

like 0

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Lists of battles

Alphabetical list: List of battles (alphabetical) Chronological: By era: List of battles before 301 List of battles 301–1300 List of battles 1301–1600 List of battles 1601–1800 List of battles 1801–1900 List of battles 1901–2000 List of battles in the 21st century By war: List of battles of the Eighty Years' War (1566–1648) Lists of battles of the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars (1792–1815) List of American Civil War battles (1861–1865) List of costliest American Civil War land battles List of naval battles of the American Civil War List of military engagements of World War I (1914–1918) List of World War II battles (1939–1945) Lists of allied military operations of the Vietnam War (1955–1975) List of military engagements during the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–2024) List of engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war (2023–2024) By death toll: List of battles by casualties By geographic location: By participant: By state participant: By participating commander: List of Ottoman battles in which the sultan participated Military career of Napoleon § Battle record summary Military career of George Washington § Summaries of Washington's Revolutionary War battles By type: Battles are generally presumed to have been land/field battles, unless otherwise stated. Lists of aerial operations and battles Air raids on Australia, 1942–1943 Air raids on Hong Kong during WWII Aircraft carrier operations during World War II List of air operations during the Battle of Europe List of Allied attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz List of strategic bombing over Germany in World War II List of strategic bombing over the United Kingdom in World War II List of amphibious assault operations List of military operations on ice List of naval battles List of naval and land-based operations in the Pacific Theater during World War II List of sieges See also: External links and references: World History Database, Alphabetic Listing of Battles Index of World battles. Archived from the original. Radford, Robert, Great Historical Battles. An extensive list of important battles and influential leaders, from -490 BC to present times. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Lists of weapons

By time period: List of medieval weapons List of premodern combat weapons List of American Civil War weapons List of World War I weapons List of World War II weapons List of ship classes of World War II List of Korean War weapons List of Vietnam War weapons List of 20th-century weapons By type: List of anti-aircraft weapons List of aircraft weapons List of fighter aircraft List of artillery List of firearms List of assault rifles List of battle rifles List of blow forward firearms List of bolt-action rifles List of bullpup firearms List of carbines List of delayed blowback firearms List of grenade launchers List of machine guns List of multiple-barrel firearms List of pistols List of recoilless rifles List of revolvers List of rifles List of rocket launchers List of semi-automatic pistols List of semi-automatic rifles List of shotguns List of sniper rifles List of submachine guns List of flamethrowers List of martial arts weapons List of man-portable anti-tank systems List of military vehicles List of missiles List of practice weapons List of rockets Lists of swords List of types of spears List of torpedoes Naval ship List of auxiliary ship classes in service List of naval ship classes in service List of submarine classes in service By country: List of artillery by country List of service rifles of national armies Soviet Union List of equipment of the Soviet Ground Forces List of armored fighting vehicles of the Soviet Union List of military aircraft of the Soviet Union and the CIS List of ships of the Soviet Navy United States List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces List of weapons of the U.S. Marine Corps Weapons-related: List of aircraft List of armoured fighting vehicles List of chemical warfare agents List of handgun cartridges List of rifle cartridges Fictional: List of magical weapons List of mythological weapons

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Loitering munition

History: First development and terminology: Initially, loitering munitions were not referred to as such but rather as "suicide UAVs" or "loitering missiles". Different sources point at different projects as originating the weapon category. The failed US AGM-136 Tacit Rainbow program or the 1980s initial Israeli Delilah variants are mentioned by some sources. The Iranian Ababil-1 was produced in the 1980s but its exact production date is unknown. The Israeli IAI Harpy was produced in the late 1980s. Early projects did not use the "loitering munition" nomenclature, which emerged much later; they used terminology existing at the time. For instance the AGM-136 Tacit Rainbow was described in a 1988 article: the Tacit Rainbow unmanned jet aircraft being developed by Northrop to loiter on high and then swoop down on enemy radars could be called a UAV, a cruise missile, or even a standoff weapon. But it is most definitely not an RPV. Initial role in suppression of enemy air defense: The response to the first generation of fixed installation surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) such as S-75 and S-125 was the development of the anti-radiation missiles (ARMs) such as AGM-45 Shrike and other means to attack fixed SAM installations, as well as developing SEAD doctrines. The Soviet counter-response was the use of mobile SAMs such as 2K12 Kub with intermittent use of radar. Thus, the SAM battery was only visible for a small period of time, during which it was also a significant threat to high-value Wild Weasel fighters. In Israel's 1982 Operation Mole Cricket 19 various means including UAVs and air-launched Samson decoys were used over suspected SAM areas to saturate enemy SAMs and to bait them to activate their radar systems, which were then attacked by ARMs. In the 1980s, a number of programs, such as the IAI Harpy or the AGM-136 Tacit Rainbow, integrated anti-radiation sensors into a drone or missile air frames coupled with command and control and loitering capabilities. This allowed the attacking force to place relatively cheap munitions in place over suspected SAM sites, and to attack promptly the moment the SAM battery is visible. This integrated the use of a drone as a baiting decoy with the attack role into one small and relatively cheap platform in comparison to the alternative wild weasel jet fighter. Evolution into additional roles: Starting in the 2000s, loitering weapons have been developed for additional roles beyond the initial SEAD role, ranging from relatively long-range strikes and fire support down to tactical, very short-range battlefield use. A documented use of loitering munitions was in the 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in which an IAI Harop was used against a bus being used as a troop transport for Armenian soldiers. The ZALA Lancet and several Shahed drones, including the HESA Shahed 136, have been used by Russia in the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, while Ukraine has fielded loitering munitions such as the UJ-25 Skyline or the American-made AeroVironment Switchblade, which is deployed at the platoon level and fits in a backpack. During conflicts in the 2010s and 2020s, conventional armies and non-state militants alike began modifying common commercial racing drones into an "FPV loitering munition" by the attachment of a small explosive, so-named because of the first-person view (FPV) they provide the operator. Explosive ordnance such as an IED, grenade, mortar round or an RPG warhead are fitted to an FPV drone then deployed to aerial bomb tactical targets. FPV drones also allow direct reconnaissance during the drone's strike mission. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine began in 2022, both Russian and Ukrainian forces were producing thousands of FPV drones every month by October 2023, many of which were donated by volunteer groups. Escadrone Pegasus and the Vyriy Drone Molfar are two examples of the low-cost drones that rapidly evolved in 2022–23 during the war. In 2022, the UK Government announced it was providing "hundreds of loitering munitions" to Ukraine. On 9 November 2023, Ukrainian soldiers claimed to have used a civilian-donated FPV drone to destroy a Russian Tor missile system on the Kupiansk front, showcasing the potential cost-effectiveness of fielding such munitions. A Tor missile system costs some $24 million dollars to build, which could buy 14,000 FPV drones. Characteristics: Loitering munitions may be as simple as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with attached explosives that is sent on a potential kamikaze mission, and may even be constructed with commercially-available quadcopters with strapped-on explosives. Purpose-built munitions are more elaborate in flight and control capabilities, warhead size and design, and onboard sensors for locating targets. Some loitering munitions use a human operator to locate targets whereas others, such as IAI Harop, can function autonomously searching and launching attacks without human intervention. Another example is UVision HERO solutions – the loitering systems are operated remotely, controlled in real time by a communications system and equipped with an electro-optical camera whose images are received by the command and control station. Some loitering munitions may return and be recovered by the operator if they are unused in an attack and have enough fuel; in particular this is characteristic of UAVs with a secondary explosive capability. Other systems, such as the Delilah do not have a recovery option and are self-destructed in mission aborts. Countermeasures: Russia uses ZALA Lancet drones in Ukraine. Since spring 2022 Ukrainian forces have been building cages around their artillery pieces using chain link fencing, wire mesh and even wooden logs as part of the construction. One analyst told Radio Liberty that such cages were "mainly intended to disrupt Russian Lancet munitions." A picture supposedly taken from January 2023 shows the rear half of a Lancet drone that failed to detonate due to such cages. Likewise Ukrainian forces have used inflatable decoys and wooden vehicles, such as HIMARS, to confuse and deceive Lancet drones. Ukrainian soldiers report shooting down Russian drones with sniper rifles. Russian soldiers use electronic warfare to disable or misdirect Ukrainian drones and have reportedly used the Stupor anti-drone rifle, which uses an electromagnetic pulse that disrupts a drone's GPS navigation. A Royal United Services Institute study in 2022 found that Russian Electronic Warfare units, in March and April 2022, knocked out or shot down 90% of Ukrainian drones that they had at the start of the war in February 2022. The main success was in jamming GPS and radio links to the drones. Both Ukraine and Russia rely on electronic warfare to defeat FPV drones. Such jammers are now used on Ukrainian trenches and vehicles. Russian forces have built jammers that can fit into a backpack. And now pocket-size jammers exist for soldiers. As of June 2023 Ukraine was losing 5-10,000 drones a month, or 160 per day, according to Ukrainian soldiers. This has led to Russia creating wire guided FPV drones, similar to a wire-guided missile or even wire-guided torpedoes. One drone captured by Ukrainian forces had 10.813 km of fibre optic cable. Such guidance would make the link between operators and FPV drone immune to jamming. It would also allow for much faster updates from the drone. However these drones would lack the manoeuvrability that wireless drones enjoy. Ukraine has also responded by using autonomous drones tasking to ensure that a jammed drone can hit a target. In March 2024 footage put on social media showed a Ukrainian FPV drone being jammed just before it struck a target. Despite the loss of operator control it still managed to strike the target. Russian tanks have been fitted with rooftop slat armor at the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine which could provide protection against loitering munitions in some circumstances. Some Ukrainian tanks taking part in the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive were also spotted using roof screens. On 21 March 2024, recent footage of the submarine Tula showed that it has been fitted with a slat armor to prevent drone strikes, the first ocean-going asset to carry such a modification. Comparison to similar weapons: Loitering munitions fit in the niche between cruise missiles and unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs). The following table compares similar size-class cruise missiles, loitering munitions, and UCAVS: Whereas some cruise missiles, such as the Block IV Tomahawk, have the ability to loiter and have some sensory and remote control features, their primary mission is typically strike and not target acquisition. Cruise missiles, as their name implies, are optimized for long-range flight at constant speed both in terms of propulsion systems and wings or lifting body design. They are often unable to loiter at slow fuel-efficient speeds which significantly reduces potential loiter time even when the missile has some loiter capabilities. Conversely almost any UAV could be piloted to crash onto a target and most could be fitted with an improvised explosive warhead. However the primary use of a UAV or UCAV would be for recoverable flight operations carrying reconnaissance equipment and/or munitions.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Loitering munition

The following table compares similar size-class cruise missiles, loitering munitions, and UCAVS: Whereas some cruise missiles, such as the Block IV Tomahawk, have the ability to loiter and have some sensory and remote control features, their primary mission is typically strike and not target acquisition. Cruise missiles, as their name implies, are optimized for long-range flight at constant speed both in terms of propulsion systems and wings or lifting body design. They are often unable to loiter at slow fuel-efficient speeds which significantly reduces potential loiter time even when the missile has some loiter capabilities. Conversely almost any UAV could be piloted to crash onto a target and most could be fitted with an improvised explosive warhead. However the primary use of a UAV or UCAV would be for recoverable flight operations carrying reconnaissance equipment and/or munitions. While many UAVs are explicitly designed with loitering in mind, they are not optimized for a diving attack, often lacking forward facing cameras, lacking in control response-speed which is unneeded in regular UAV flight, and are noisy when diving, potentially providing warning to the target. UAV's, being designed as multi-use platforms, often have a unit cost that is not appropriate for regular one-time expendable mission use. The primary mission of a loitering munition is reaching the suspected target area, target acquisition during a loitering phase, followed by a self-destructive strike, and the munition is optimized in this regard in terms of characteristics (e.g. very short engine lifetime, silence in strike phase, speed of strike dive, optimization toward loitering time instead of range/speed) and unit cost (appropriate for a one-off strike mission). Ethical and international humanitarian law concerns: Loitering munitions that are capable of making autonomous attack decisions (man out of the loop) raise moral, ethical, and international humanitarian law concerns because a human being is not involved in making the actual decision to attack and potentially kill humans, as is the case with fire-and-forget missiles in common use since the 1960s. Whereas some guided munitions may lock-on after launch or may be sensor fuzed, their flight time is typically limited and a human launches them at an area where enemy activity is strongly suspected, as is the case with modern fire-and-forget missiles and airstrike planning. An autonomous loitering munition, on the other hand, may be launched at an area where enemy activity is only probable, and loiter searching autonomously for targets for potentially hours following the initial launch decision, though it may be able to request final authorization for an attack from a human. The IAI Harpy and IAI Harop are frequently cited in the relevant literature as they set a precedent for an aerial system (though not necessarily a precedent when comparing to a modern naval mine) in terms of length and quality of autonomous function, in relation to a cruise missile for example. List of users and producers: As of 2023, loitering munitions are used by the armed forces of several countries, including: Argentina – HERO 30, HERO 120 Armenia – HRESH, BEEB 1800, AW21 Australia – Drone 40, Innovaero OWL Azerbaijan – IAI Harpy, IAI Harop, Orbiter 1K, SkyStriker, STM Kargu, Qirği, Quzgün Belarus – UBAK-25 Chekan Brazil – Anshar China – IAI Harpy, CH-901, WS-43, ASN-301 France - Switchblade, Colibri, Larinae Georgia - Delta-WB Warmate Greece – Attalus, Aihmi AHM-1X Indonesia – Rajata India – Nagastra-1, IAI Harpy, IAI Harop, SkyStriker, Warmate, Trinetra, ALS-50, Johnnette JM-1, Shaurya-1, Kadet Loitering Aerial Munition, Overwatch PHOLOS Iran – Karrar, Shahed 131, Shahed 136 (loitering capabilities disputed), Hesa Ababil-2, Raad 85, Arash-2, Meraj-521, Meraj-532, Zhubin, Shahin-1, Shahed 238 and possibly others Israel – IAI Harpy, IAI Harop, IAI Harpy NG, IAI Green Dragon, IAI Rotem L, Orbiter 1K, Delilah, SkyStriker, Spike Firefly, HERO loitering munitions series, Viper, Lanius, Point Blank, SpyX, and upgraded variants. Lithuania – Switchblade Morocco – IAI Harop Poland – WB Electronics Warmate Portugal – UAVision Elanus Russia – ZALA Kub-BLA ("Cube"), ZALA Lancet, Geran-1, Geran-2 Serbia – Gavran, Osica, Komarac, Vila 1 Singapore – IAI Harop Slovakia – AX-2 Predator South Africa – Paramount N-Raven South Korea – Devil Killer, IAI Harpy Spain - Q-SLAM-40 Sudan – Kamin-25 Taiwan – NCSIST Chien Hsiang, NCSIST Fire Cardinal Turkey Robit UAV AZAB, – IAI Harpy, STM Kargu, STM Alpagu, Transvaro-Havelsan Fedai, LENTATEK Kargı, Roketsan-STM Alpagut Turkmenistan – SkyStriker UAE – QX-1, Hunter SP, Hunter 2-S, Hunter 5, Hunter 10, Shadow 25, Shadow 50, RW-24, N-Raven United Kingdom – Switchblade, Overwatch PHOLOS United States – ALTIUS-600M, AeroVironment Switchblade, Phoenix Ghost, Raytheon Coyote, HERO 120, Point Blank. Ukraine – RAM II, Switchblade, ST-35 Silent Thunder, Phoenix Ghost, Warmate, Bober, AQ-400 Scythe, UJ-25 Skyline, Overwatch PHOLOS, QinetiQ Banshee, ALTIUS-600M Yemen – (Houthis) – Qasef-1/2K, Shahed 131, Shahed 136, Samad-2/3, Shahed-101 See also: Boeing Persistent Munition Technology Demonstrator Flying bomb Low Cost Autonomous Attack System Sypaq Corvo Precision Payload Delivery System Television guidance V-1 flying bomb XM501 Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System References: External links: Media related to Loitering munition at Wikimedia Commons

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Loss-of-strength gradient

Decreasing relevance: Boulding also argued that the loss-of-strength gradient was becoming less relevant in modern warfare due to easier transportation and the rise of strategic air and missile power. He claimed that a 20th-century "military revolution" allowed for a "substantial diminution in the cost of transportation of organized violence of all kinds, especially of organized armed forces", as well as "an enormous increase in the range of the deadly projectile." On the other hand, another scholar contended that the loss-of-strength gradient continues to be relevant, and if there has been a reduction in the concept's significance, it was only temporary, as transportation is not becoming permanently easy, and air power is not permanently replacing the need for forward deployed ground forces. See also: Blue-water navy Culminating point Defence in depth Expeditionary warfare Power projection Strategic depth == References ==

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Low-intensity conflict

Official definitions: United States: Low-intensity conflict is defined by the US Army as: ... a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low-intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of the armed forces. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low-intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications. The manual also says: ... successful LIC operations, consistent with US interests and laws, can advance US international goals such as the growth of freedom, democratic institutions, and free market economies. ... US policy recognizes that indirect, rather than direct, applications of US military power are the most appropriate and cost-effective ways to achieve national goals in a LIC environment. The principal US military instrument in LIC is security assistance in the form of training, equipment, services and combat support. When LIC threatens friends and allies, the aim of security assistance is to ensure that their military institutions can provide security for their citizens and government. ... The United States will also employ combat operations in exceptional circumstances when it cannot protect its national interests by other means. When a US response is called for, it must be in accordance with the principles of international and domestic law. These principles affirm the inherent right of states to use force in individual or collective self-defense against armed attack. Relations with terrorism: Boaz Ganor notes that scholars once labeled terrorism as "low-intensity warfare." However, this terminology has become obsolete due to the intricate nature of multidimensional warfare and the mass impact of contemporary terrorist attacks, such as the September 11 attacks. Implementation: Weapons: As the name suggests, in comparison with conventional operations the armed forces involved operate at a greatly reduced tempo, with fewer soldiers, a reduced range of tactical equipment and limited scope to operate in a military manner. For example, the use of air power, pivotal in modern warfare, is often relegated to transport and surveillance, or used only by the dominant side of conflict in asymmetric warfare such as a government forces against insurgents. Artillery and multiple rocket launchers are often not used when LIC occurs in populated areas. The role of the armed forces is dependent on the stage of the insurrection, whether it has progressed to armed struggle or is in an early stage of propaganda and protests. Improvised explosive devices are commonly used by insurgents, militias and sometimes government forces such as barrel bombs in low intensity conflicts. The majority of casualties in low intensity conflicts tend to be resulting from small arms and improvised explosive devices. Intelligence: Intelligence gathering is essential to an efficient basis of LIC operation instructions. Electronic and signal gathering intelligence, ELINT and SIGINT, proves largely ineffective against low-intensity opponents. LIC generally requires more hands-on HUMINT methods of information retrieval. Stages: In the first stages of insurrection, much of an army's work is "soft" – working in conjunction with civil authorities in psychological operations, propaganda, counter-organizing, so-called "hearts and minds." If the conflict progresses, possibly into armed clashes, the role develops with the addition of the identification and removal of the armed groups – but again, at a low level, in communities rather than throughout entire cities. Examples: Burma: Myanmar (Burma) has regularly conducted limited low-intensity military campaigns against the independence movement of the Karen people in an area of southeast Burma (roughly corresponding to a Burmese administrative region called the Kayin State), which has actively pursued independence since January 1949. While allegedly limited and low-intensity in that the territories occupied in force by central government forces are returned (as they cannot be held permanently as yet) at the end of the offensives (with the stated, but sometimes unstated, purpose of weakening the opposition and independence movements), human rights organizations and national governments outside of Burma question the veracity of, and sometimes outright refute, these claims. Sudan: The governments of Sudan have also engaged in limited military offensives (analogous to Burma's "annual dry season offensives") against various armed opposition and independence movements, which have often escalated into full-scale warfare, particularly in the south and Darfur, but also until recently in the east. These military actions (First Sudanese Civil War and Second Sudanese Civil War) have, over time, continued to ravage the areas in dispute and contribute greatly to the poor conditions in those regions as well as the various human rights violations that have occurred (and in some cases are still occurring) there. German occupation of France: German occupation of Western Europe during World War II, notably the occupation of France, shared many aspects with more recent cases of LIC, such as the "Hearts and minds" stage early on, establishment of puppet governments, strong propaganda aimed at isolating resistance movements, and support to domestic friendly forces (such as the Milice in France). German occupation of Poland: In Poland from 1939 to 1945 there was a strong partisan movement. Partisan forces (mainly AK and BCh organizations), although less numerous than the German army, organized a strong resistance movement; in the years 1941-44 a successful action was carried out against the expulsion of Poles from the Zamość region. Besides, the "Polish underground" destroyed hundreds of German transports of military supplies throughout the war. In Poland there was also a secret order and many non-military resistance organizations like "Zegota" which helped thousands of Jews save their lives. When the Red Army entered Poland in 1944, the Poles wanted to support them in the fight against the Germans, but the Soviets betrayed them, even though during Operation Tempest, the partisans significantly accelerated the Russian attack, the Russians arrested or killed thousands of members of the Polish Underground State, nor did the Soviets also help support the Warsaw Uprising. In total, throughout the war, hundreds of thousands of people (up to 700,000) served in the ranks of the Polish underground, and even every sixth Pole helped polish partizants but partizantes did not have more than 50,000 firearms. Northern Ireland: The conflict, known as The Troubles, was a sectarian and ethno-nationalistic conflict, fuelled by historical events and longstanding oppression by the UK's military and security services. By the mid-1960s, the Northern Ireland civil rights movement began organizing Irish Catholics to protest, among other factors, disenfranchisement, abuses of power such as discrimination in the housing and job markets perpetuated by the ruling governments in the United Kingdom and its devolved subsidiary, known as Stormont. When these peaceful protests were met with brutal attacks by both the police and loyalist gangs given free rein to attack these protesters. On its face, it had a religious dimension although despite use of the terms 'Protestant' and 'Catholic' to refer to the two warring sides, it was not a religious conflict. For most, these were mostly just terms of identity. A key issue was the status of Northern Ireland. Unionists and loyalists, who descended from colonists who arrived during the Ulster Plantation, displacing all but a handful of native clans and farmers, were Ulster Protestants and wanted Northern Ireland to remain within the United Kingdom. Irish nationalists and republicans, who were mostly Irish Catholics, wanted to end the Partition of Ireland, leave the United Kingdom and reunite with the 26 counties that had formed the Republic of Ireland following partition. The main participants in the Troubles were republican paramilitaries such as the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA); loyalist paramilitaries such as the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) and Ulster Defence Association (UDA); British state security forces such as the British Army, Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), Ulster Defense Regiment, MI5, and lesser known groups like the Force Research Unit; and political activists. The security forces of the Republic of Ireland played a smaller role. Republicans carried out a guerrilla campaign against British forces as well as a bombing campaign against infrastructural, commercial and political targets. Loyalists attacked occasionally republicans/nationalists, but focused primarily on the wider Catholic community in what they described as retaliation. At times, there were bouts of sectarian tit-for-tat violence, as well as feuds within and between paramilitary groups. The British security forces undertook policing and counter-insurgency, primarily against suspected republicans. This included the internment without trial of anyone accused of being, or supporting, Republicans. Investigations also revealed significant collusion between British state forces and loyalist paramilitaries, and furthermore loyalist paramilitaries such as the Glenanne gang included serving members of the Ulster Defense Regiment and Royal Ulster Constabulary. Guerrilla warfare: the main challenge to low-intensity warfare: Low-intensity warfare's main opponent is the guerrilla, or irregular fighter. This opponent may be state sponsored, or private non-state actors driven by religious or other ideology in urban, semi-urban and rural areas. Modern guerrilla warfare at its fullest elaboration is an integrated process, complete with sophisticated doctrine, organization, specialist skills and propaganda capabilities. Guerrillas can operate as small, scattered bands of raiders, but they can also work side by side with regular forces or combine for far-ranging mobile operations in squad, platoon or battalion sizes or even form conventional units.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Low-intensity conflict

Investigations also revealed significant collusion between British state forces and loyalist paramilitaries, and furthermore loyalist paramilitaries such as the Glenanne gang included serving members of the Ulster Defense Regiment and Royal Ulster Constabulary. Guerrilla warfare: the main challenge to low-intensity warfare: Low-intensity warfare's main opponent is the guerrilla, or irregular fighter. This opponent may be state sponsored, or private non-state actors driven by religious or other ideology in urban, semi-urban and rural areas. Modern guerrilla warfare at its fullest elaboration is an integrated process, complete with sophisticated doctrine, organization, specialist skills and propaganda capabilities. Guerrillas can operate as small, scattered bands of raiders, but they can also work side by side with regular forces or combine for far-ranging mobile operations in squad, platoon or battalion sizes or even form conventional units. Based on their level of sophistication and organization, they can shift between all those modes as the situation demands, as guerrilla warfare is flexible, not static. Guerrilla tactics are based on intelligence, ambush, deception, sabotage, and espionage, undermining an authority by long, low-intensity confrontation. It can be quite successful against an unpopular foreign or local regime, as demonstrated by the Vietnam War. A guerrilla army may increase the cost of maintaining an occupation or a colonial presence above what the foreign power may wish to bear. Against a local regime, guerrillas may make governance impossible by terror strikes and sabotage or even a combination of forces to depose their local enemies in conventional battle. Those tactics are useful in demoralizing an enemy and raising the morale of the guerrillas. In many cases, guerrilla tactics allow a small force to hold off a much larger and better equipped enemy for a long time, as in Russia's Second Chechen War and the Second Seminole War fought in the swamps of Florida, United States. Guerrilla tactics and strategy are summarized below and are discussed extensively in standard reference works such as Mao's On Guerrilla Warfare. Three-phase Maoist model: Mao/Giap approach: Mao's theory of people's war divides warfare into three phases. In the first phase, the guerrillas gain the support of the population by attacking the machinery of government and distributing propaganda. In the second phase, escalating attacks are made on the government's military and vital institutions. In the third phase, conventional fighting is used to seize cities, overthrow the government, and take control of the country. Mao's seminal work On Guerrilla Warfare, has been widely distributed and applied, nowhere more successfully than in Vietnam, under the military leader and theorist Võ Nguyên Giáp. Giap's People's War, People's Army closely followed the Maoist three-stage approach but with greater emphasis on flexible shifting between mobile and guerrilla warfare, and opportunities for a spontaneous "general uprising" of the masses, in conjunction with guerrilla forces. Organization: Guerrilla organization can range from small local rebel groups with a few dozen participants to tens of thousands of fighters, deploying from tiny cells to formations of regimental strength. In most cases, there is a leadership aiming for a clear political objective. The organization is typically structured into political and military wings, sometimes allowing the political leadership plausible deniability of military attacks. The most fully elaborated guerrilla warfare structure was seen by the Chinese and Vietnamese communists during the revolutionary wars of East and Southeast Asia. A simplified example of this more sophisticated organizational type, which was used by revolutionary forces during the Vietnam War, is shown below. Types of operations: Guerrilla operations typically include a variety of attacks on transportation routes, individual groups of police or military, installations and structures, economic enterprises, and targeted civilians. Attacking in small groups and using camouflage and often captured weapons of that enemy, the guerrilla force can constantly keep pressure on its foes and diminish its numbers and still allow escape with relatively few casualties. The intention of such attacks is only military but also political in aiming to demoralize target populations or governments or by goading an overreaction that forces the population to take sides for or against the guerrillas. Examples range from chopping off limbs in various internal African rebellions to the suicide bombings of Palestine and Sri Lanka to sophisticated maneuvers by Viet Cong and NVA forces against military bases and formations. Surprise and intelligence: For successful operations, surprise must be achieved by guerrillas. If the operation has been betrayed or compromised, it is usually called off immediately. Intelligence is also extremely important, and detailed knowledge of the target's dispositions, weaponry, and morale is gathered before any attack. Intelligence can be harvested in several ways. Collaborators and sympathizers usually provide a steady flow of useful information. If working clandestinely, guerrilla operatives may disguise their membership in the insurgent operation and use deception to ferret out needed data. Employment or enrollment as a student may be undertaken near the target zone, community organizations may be infiltrated, and even romantic relationships struck up in intelligence gathering. Public sources of information are also invaluable to the guerrilla, from the flight schedules of targeted airlines, to public announcements of visiting foreign dignitaries, to US Army Field Manuals. Modern computer access via the World Wide Web makes harvesting and collation of such data relatively easy. The use of on the spot reconnaissance is integral to operational planning. Operatives will "case" or analyze a location or potential target in depth- cataloging routes of entry and exit, building structures, the location of phones and communication lines, the presence of security personnel, and a myriad of other factors. Finally, intelligence is concerned with political factors such as the occurrence of an election or the impact of the potential operation on civilian and enemy morale. Relationships with the civil population: Relationships with civil populations are influenced by whether the guerrillas operate among a hostile or friendly population. A friendly population is of immense importance to guerrillas, providing shelter, supplies, financing, intelligence, and recruits. The "base of the people" is thus the key lifeline of the guerrilla movement. In the early stages of the Vietnam War, American officials "discovered that several thousand supposedly government-controlled 'fortified hamlets' were in fact controlled by Viet Cong guerrillas, who 'often used them for supply and rest havens.'" Popular mass support in a confined local area or country, however, is not always strictly necessary. Guerrilla and revolutionary groups can still operate by using the protection of a friendly regime, drawing supplies, weapons, intelligence, local security, and diplomatic cover. The Al Qaeda organization is an example of the latter type, drawing sympathizers and support primarily from the wide-ranging Muslim world, even after American attacks eliminated the umbrella of a friendly Taliban regime in Afghanistan. An apathetic or hostile population makes life difficult for guerrillas, and strenuous attempts are usually made to gain their support. They may involve not only persuasion but also a calculated policy of intimidation. Guerrilla forces may characterize a variety of operations as a liberation struggle, but that may or may not result in sufficient support from affected civilians. Other factors, including ethnic and religious hatreds, can make a simple national liberation claim untenable. Whatever the exact mix of persuasion or coercion used by guerrillas, relationships with civil populations are one of the most important factors in their success or failure. Use of terror: Terror is used to focus international attention on the guerrilla cause, liquidate opposition leaders, extort cash from targets, intimidate the general population, create economic losses, and keep followers and potential defectors in line. The widespread use of terror by guerrillas and their opponents is a common feature of modern guerrilla conflicts, with civilians attempting to mollify both sides. At times, a civil population may be the main targets of guerrilla attacks, as in Palestinian operations against Israeli civilians. Such tactics may backfire and cause the civil population to withdraw its support or to back countervailing forces against the guerrillas. Withdrawal: Guerrillas must plan carefully for withdrawal once an operation has been completed or if it is going badly. The withdrawal phase is sometimes regarded as the most important part of a planned action, as getting entangled in a lengthy struggle with superior forces is usually fatal to insurgent, terrorist or revolutionary operatives. Withdrawal is usually accomplished using a variety of different routes and methods and may include quickly the scouring of the area for loose weapons, the cleaning-up of evidence, and the disguising as peaceful civilians. In the case of suicide operations, withdrawal considerations by successful attackers are moot, but such activity as eliminating traces of evidence and hiding materials and supplies must still be done. Logistics: Guerrillas typically operate with a smaller logistical footprint than to conventional formations, but their logistical activities can be elaborately organized. A primary consideration is to avoid depending on fixed bases and depots, which are comparatively easy for conventional units to locate and destroy. Mobility and speed are the keys; wherever possible, the guerrilla must live off the land or draw support from the civil population in which it is embedded. In that sense, "the people" become the guerrilla's supply base. The financing of terrorist or guerrilla activities ranges from direct individual contributions (voluntary or non-voluntary) to the actual operation of business enterprises by insurgent operatives to bank robberies and kidnappings to the complex financial networks that are based on kin, ethnic and religious affiliation used by modern jihadist/jihad organizations. Permanent and semi-permanent bases form part of the guerrilla logistical structure, which are usually located in remote areas or in cross-border sanctuaries that are sheltered by friendly regimes.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Low-intensity conflict

A primary consideration is to avoid depending on fixed bases and depots, which are comparatively easy for conventional units to locate and destroy. Mobility and speed are the keys; wherever possible, the guerrilla must live off the land or draw support from the civil population in which it is embedded. In that sense, "the people" become the guerrilla's supply base. The financing of terrorist or guerrilla activities ranges from direct individual contributions (voluntary or non-voluntary) to the actual operation of business enterprises by insurgent operatives to bank robberies and kidnappings to the complex financial networks that are based on kin, ethnic and religious affiliation used by modern jihadist/jihad organizations. Permanent and semi-permanent bases form part of the guerrilla logistical structure, which are usually located in remote areas or in cross-border sanctuaries that are sheltered by friendly regimes. They can be quite elaborate, such as in the tough VC/NVA fortified base camps and tunnel complexes encountered by US forces during the Vietnam War. Their importance can be seen by the hard fighting sometimes engaged in by communist forces to protect those sites. However, when it became clear that defense was untenable, communist units typically withdrew without sentiment. Terrain: Guerrilla warfare is often associated with a rural setting, which was indeed the case with the definitive operations of Mao and Giap, and the mujahadeen of Afghanistan. Guerrillas, however, have successfully operated in urban settings, such as in Argentina and Cyprus. In both cases, guerrillas rely on a friendly population to provide supplies and intelligence. Rural guerrillas prefer to operate in regions providing plenty of cover and concealment, especially heavily forested and mountainous areas. Urban guerrillas, rather than melting into the mountains and jungles, blend into the population and also depend on a support base among the people. Rooting guerrillas out of both types of areas can be difficult. Foreign support and sanctuaries: Foreign support in the form of soldiers, weapons, sanctuary, or statements of sympathy for guerrillas is not strictly necessary, but it can greatly increase the chances of an insurgent victory. Foreign diplomatic support may bring the guerrilla cause to international attention, putting pressure on local opponents to make concessions or garnering sympathetic support and material assistance. Foreign sanctuaries can add heavily to guerrilla chances, furnishing weapons, supplies, materials, and training bases. Such shelter can benefit from international law, particularly if the sponsoring regime is successful in concealing its support and in claiming plausible deniability for attacks that are by operatives based in its territory. The VC and NVA made extensive use of such international sanctuaries during their conflict, and the complex of trails, way-stations and bases snaking through Laos and Cambodia (the famous Ho Chi Minh Trail) was the logistical lifeline that sustained their forces in South Vietnam. Another case in point is the Mukti Bahini guerrillas, who fought alongside the Indian Army in the 14-day Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971 against Pakistan, which led to the independence of Bangladesh. In the post-Vietnam era, al-Qaeda also made effective use of remote territories, such as Afghanistan under the Taliban regime, to plan and execute its operations. That foreign sanctuary eventually broke down with American attacks against the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the September 11 attacks. Guerrilla initiative and combat intensity: Since they can choose when and where to strike, guerrillas usually have the tactical initiative and the element of surprise. The planning for an operation may take weeks, months, or even years with a constant series of cancelations and restarts, as the situation changes. Careful rehearsals and "dry runs" are usually conducted to work out problems and details. Many guerrilla strikes are not undertaken unless clear numerical superiority can be achieved in the target area, a pattern typical of VC/NVA and other "people's war" operations. Individual suicide bomb attacks offer another pattern, typically involving only the individual bomber and his support team, but they too are spread or metered out based on prevailing capabilities and political winds. Whatever approach is used, the guerrilla holds the initiative and can prolong his survival by varying the intensity of combat. Attacks are spread out over quite a range of time, from weeks to years. During the interim periods, the guerrilla can rebuild, resupply, and plan. During the Vietnam War, most communist units, including mobile NVA regulars using guerrilla tactics, spent only a few days per month fighting. While they might be forced into an unwanted battle by an enemy sweep, most of the time was spent in training, intelligence gathering, political and civic infiltration, propaganda indoctrination, construction of fortifications, or foraging for supplies and food. The large numbers of such groups striking at different times, however, gave the war its "around-the-clock" quality. Low-intensity counter operations or counter-guerrilla warfare: Principles: The low-intensity fighter or guerrilla can be difficult to beat, but certain principles of counter-insurgency warfare are well known since the 1950s and 1960s and have been successfully applied. Classic guidelines: The widely distributed and influential work of Sir Robert Thompson, counter-insurgency expert in Malaysia, offers several such guidelines. Thompson's underlying assumption is that of a country minimally committed to the rule of law and better governance. Numerous other regimes, however, give such considerations short shrift, and their counterguerrilla operations have involved mass murder, genocide, starvation as well as the massive spread of terror, torture and execution. The totalitarian regimes of Stalin and Hitler are classic examples, as are the lesser but comparable measures of dictatorships fighting "dirty wars" in South America. Elements of Thompson's moderate approach are adapted here: A viable competing vision that comprehensively mobilizes popular support. There must be a clear political counter-vision, which can overshadow, match, or neutralize the guerrilla vision. That can range from granting political autonomy to economic development measures in the affected region. The vision must be integrated approach, involving political, social, and economic and media influence measures. Reasonable concessions where necessary. Action also must be taken at a lower level to resolve legitimate grievances. It may be tempting for the counter-insurgent side simply to declare guerrillas "terrorists" and to pursue a harsh liquidation strategy. Brute force, however, may not be successful in the long run. Action does not mean capitulation, but sincere steps, such as removing corrupt or arbitrary officials, cleaning up fraud, or collecting taxes honestly can do much to undermine the guerrillas' appeal. Economy of force. The counter-insurgent regime must not overreact to guerrilla provocations, which may indeed be what the guerrilla seeks to create a crisis in the civilian morale. Police level actions should guide the effort and take place in a clear framework of legality, even if under a state of emergency. Civil liberties and other customs of peacetime may have to be suspended, but again, the counter-insurgent regime must exercise restraint and cleave to orderly procedures. Clear steps must be taken to curb brutality and retaliation by the security or "freelance" forces. Big unit action may sometimes be necessary. If police action is not sufficient to stop insurgents, military sweeps may be necessary. Such "big battalion" operations may be needed to break up significant guerrilla concentrations and split them into small groups that can be controlled by combined civic-military action. Mobility. Mobility and aggressive small unit action is extremely important for the counter-insurgent regime. Heavy formations must be lightened to aggressively locate, pursue, and fix insurgent units. Huddling in static strongpoints simply concedes the field to the insurgents, who must be kept on the run constantly by aggressive patrols, raids, ambushes, sweeps, cordons, etc. Systematic intelligence effort. Every effort must be made to gather and organize useful intelligence. A systematic process must be set up to do so, ranging from casual questioning of civilians to structured interrogations of prisoners. Creative measures must also be used, including the use of double agents or even bogus "liberation" or sympathizer groups to help reveal insurgent personnel or operations. Methodical clear and hold. An "ink spot" clear and hold strategy must be used by the counter-insurgent regime, which divides the conflict area into sectors and assigns priorities between them. Control must expand outward like an ink spot on paper, systematically neutralizing and eliminating the insurgents in one sector of the grid, before proceeding to the next. It may be necessary to pursue holding or defensive actions elsewhere while priority areas are cleared and held. Careful deployment of mass popular forces and special units. Specialist units can be used profitably, including commando squads, long range reconnaissance, "hunter-killer" patrols, defectors who can track or persuade their former colleagues like the Kit Carson units in Vietnam, and paramilitary style groups. Strict control must be kept over specialist units to prevent the emergence of violent vigilante-style reprisal squads that undermine the government's program. Mass forces include village self-defence groups and citizen militias organized for local defence and security. Foreign assistance must be limited and carefully used. Such aid should be limited to material and technical support and small cadres of specialists. Unless that is done, the foreign helper may find itself "taking over" the local war and being sucked into a lengthy commitment, thus providing the guerrillas with valuable propaganda opportunities. Such a scenario occurred with the United States in Vietnam. Low-intensity operations: Low-intensity operations consist of the deployment and use of soldiers in situations other than war.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Low-intensity conflict

Specialist units can be used profitably, including commando squads, long range reconnaissance, "hunter-killer" patrols, defectors who can track or persuade their former colleagues like the Kit Carson units in Vietnam, and paramilitary style groups. Strict control must be kept over specialist units to prevent the emergence of violent vigilante-style reprisal squads that undermine the government's program. Mass forces include village self-defence groups and citizen militias organized for local defence and security. Foreign assistance must be limited and carefully used. Such aid should be limited to material and technical support and small cadres of specialists. Unless that is done, the foreign helper may find itself "taking over" the local war and being sucked into a lengthy commitment, thus providing the guerrillas with valuable propaganda opportunities. Such a scenario occurred with the United States in Vietnam. Low-intensity operations: Low-intensity operations consist of the deployment and use of soldiers in situations other than war. For states, these operations are usually conducted against non-state actors and are given terms like counter-insurgency, anti-subversion, and peacekeeping. Violent non-state actors often conduct low-intensity operations against states, often in insurgencies. See also: Divide and rule Fourth-generation warfare Guerrilla warfare Grey-zone (international relations) Irregular warfare Military operations other than war New Wars Political warfare Reagan Doctrine Violent non-state actor References: Further reading: Asprey, Robert. War in the Shadows, ISBN 0-595-22593-4 British Army (ed.). Land Operations, Volume III, Counter Revolutionary Operations, 1969. Buffaloe, David. Conventional Forces in Low-Intensity Conflict: The 82nd Airborne at Firebase Shkin, Afghanistan [1], October 2004. Hammes, Thomas X.. The Sling and the Stone, Zenith Press, 2004. ISBN 0-7603-2059-4 Mikulaschek, Christoph, Saurabh Pant, and Beza Tesfaye. 2020. "Winning Hearts and Minds in a Civil War: Governance, Leadership Change, and Support for Violent Groups in Iraq", American Journal of Political Science. doi:10.1111/ajps.12527. van Creveld, Martin. The Transformation of War. The Free Press, 1991. ISBN 0-02-933155-2 External links: A wide-ranging gathering of Special Operations / Low Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC) related topics

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Main operating base

Former MOBs in Afghanistan: Kandahar International Airport, Helmand Province. Camp Bastion, Helmand Province. Bagram Airfield, Parwan Province. MOB Price, Helmand Province. MOB Lashkar Gah used to be home to the 4th Mechanized Brigade (‘Black Rats’) headquarters. See also: List of established military terms == References ==

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Maneuver warfare

Concepts: Although most battles between established armies have historically been fought based on attrition warfare strategies, many military doctrines and cultures are based on replete historical examples of maneuver warfare. The view on attrition warfare involves moving masses of men and materiel against enemy strongpoints, with the emphasis on the destruction of the enemy's physical assets, success as measured by enemy combatants killed, equipment and infrastructure destroyed, and territory taken or occupied. Attrition warfare tends to use rigidly-centralized command structures that require little or no creativity or initiative from lower-level leadership (also called top-down or "command push" tactics). Conventional warfare doctrine identifies a spectrum with attrition warfare and maneuver warfare on opposite ends. In attrition warfare, the enemy is seen as a collection of targets to be found and destroyed. It exploits maneuver to bring to bear firepower to destroy enemy forces. Maneuver warfare, on the other hand, exploits firepower and attrition on key elements of opposing forces. Maneuver warfare suggest that strategic movement can bring the defeat of an opposing force more efficiently than simply contacting and destroying enemy forces until they can no longer fight. Instead, in maneuver warfare, the destruction of certain enemy targets, such as command and control centers, logistical bases, or fire support assets, is combined with isolation of enemy forces and the exploitation by movement of enemy weaknesses. Bypassing and cutting off enemy strongpoints often results in the collapse of that strongpoint even where the physical damage is minimal, such as the Maginot Line. Firepower, primarily used to destroy as many enemy forces as possible in attrition warfare, is used to suppress or destroy enemy positions at breakthrough points during maneuver warfare. Infiltration tactics, conventionally or with special forces, may be used extensively to cause chaos and confusion behind enemy lines. The retired officer and military theory author Robert Leonhard summarizes maneuver warfare theory as "preempt, dislocate, and disrupt" the enemy as alternatives to the destruction of enemy mass through attrition warfare. Since tempo and initiative are so critical to the success of maneuver warfare, command structures tend to be more decentralized with more tactical freedom given to lower-level unit leaders. Decentralized command structures allows "on the ground" unit leaders but still works within the guidelines of the commander's overall vision, to exploit enemy weaknesses as they become evident, which is also called "recon-pull" tactics or directive control. The war theorist Martin van Creveld identifies six main elements of maneuver warfare: Tempo: as illustrated by John Boyd's OODA loop. Schwerpunkt ('focal point'): the center of effort, or striking the enemy at the right place at the right time. According to van Creveld, ideally, a spot that is both vital and weakly defended. Surprise: Leaving the enemy unable to counter an action is central to any maneuver, and may be achieved by their remaining unaware for as long as possible Combined arms: the use of multiple means by which to attack the enemy creates an opportunity cost to any reaction. Should the enemy counter against one form of attack, they may leave themselves vulnerable to another. Additionally, different forms of attack may support each other through concurrent action (ex: Infantry supporting armor in such a way that the infantry has more available firepower, and the armor has protection from ambush) Flexibility: a military must be well rounded, self-contained and redundant. By maintaining different avenues of attack, either in method, movement, or any other factor, alternatives are always available, and opportunities can always be seized Decentralized command: rapidly changing situations may outpace the orders of a centralized command, leaving personnel with instructions that no longer apply. Lower levels of command must understand overall intent so as to adapt to a changing environment. History: Early examples: For most of history, armies were slower than a marching soldier, making it possible for opposing armies to march around each other as long as they wished. Supply conditions often decided where and when the battle would finally start. Prehistorically, that began to change with the domestication of the horse, the invention of chariots, and increasing military use of cavalry. It had two major uses: to attack and use its momentum to break infantry formations and to use the advantage of speed to cut communications and isolate formations for later defeat in detail. The retreat of the center of the Athenian and Platean citizen-soldiers (Hoplites) at the battle of Marathon against the forces of Datis in 490 BC, and subsequent pincer movements by Athenian forces on the flanks, used a similar tactic. The intention was to bring the Persian core forces forward—Persian and Saka axemen. The Hoplite flanks would then drive off their opposite numbers and enveloped the Persian center. Before the battle, Datis had re-embarked his cavalry—to which the hoplite formations had little real defense—which substantially weakened his position. Khalid's invasion of Roman Syria in July 634—by invading Syria from an unexpected direction, the Syrian desert—is another example of taking enemy defenses by surprise. While the Byzantine army held the Muslim forces in southern Syria and had expected reinforcement from the conventional Syria-Arabia road in the south, Khalid, who was in Iraq, marched through the Syrian desert and entered northern Syria, completely taking the Byzantines by surprise and cutting off their communications with northern Syria. Mongol use: The Mongol emperor Genghis Khan used a military system of maneuver warfare that focused on rapid, decisive maneuver, utilizing the skill and endurance of his Mongol horsemen. He used operational maneuver, command and control, deception, and precise battlefield tactics which were vastly superior to those of his opponents in China, Russia, Persia, and Eastern Europe and defeated virtually every enemy army that he faced. An example of his usage of maneuver warfare was the defeat and annexation of the Khwarazmian Empire between 1219 and 1221 CE, which wielded an army nearly three times the Mongol army, in just a few months of fighting. The Mongol army's constant movement and maneuvering tied down the Khwarazmian forces, denying them the ability to gain the initiative as well as shocked and demoralized the Khwarazmian Shah Ala ad-Din Muhammad as well as his army, thus ending the campaign before the Shah could bring to bear his much larger numbers. Napoleon's use: Similar strategies are also possible using suitably trained infantry. Napoleon I used preemptive movements of cavalry and fast infantry to interrupt the initial deployment of enemy forces. This allowed his forces to attack where and when he wanted, enabling force concentration, possibly in combination with advantage of terrain. It disabled effective coordination of enemy forces, even when they were superior in numbers. That was effective tactically and strategically. During his time as a general and indeed his power base to become the head of France, Napoleon's reputation was based on a powerful and fluent campaign in northern Italy, opposing the numerically superior Austrians. He cited Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne, Viscount of Turenne as one major source of his strategy. He trained a normal, if rather undisciplined, French Army of Italy into moving faster than most thought possible. That was partially because his army lived off the land and had no big logistical "tail." Both his ability to move huge armies to give battle where he wanted and the style of his choice would become legendary, and he was seen as undefeatable, even against larger and superior forces. Napoleon also arranged his forces into what would be known in the present as "battle groups" of combined arms formations to allow faster reaction time to enemy action. That strategy is an important quality in supporting the effectiveness of maneuver warfare and was used again by Carl von Clausewitz. Napoleon's principal strategy was to move fast to engage before the enemy had time to organize, to engage lightly while moving to turn the flank that defended the main resupply route, to envelop and deploy blocking forces to prevent reinforcement, and to defeat those contained in the envelopment in detail. All of those activities imply faster movement than the enemy as well as faster reaction times to enemy activities. His use of fast mass marches to gain strategic advantage, cavalry probes, and screens to hide his movements; deliberate movement to gain psychological advantage by isolating forces from one another; and their headquarters are all hallmarks of maneuver warfare. One of his major concerns was the relatively slow speed of infantry movement relative to the cavalry. It was that and subsequent defeats that caused a major doctrinal reevaluation by the Prussians under Clausewitz of the revealed power of maneuver warfare. The results of that review were seen in the Franco-Prussian War. Mechanization: In the mid-19th century, various forms of mechanized transport were introduced, starting with trains running on steam power. That resulted in significant logistic improvements. Opposing armies were no longer limited in speed by the pace of march. Some train-borne maneuvering took place during the American Civil War in the 1860s, but the sizes of the armies involved meant that the system could provide only limited support. Armored trains were among the first armored fighting vehicles employed by mankind. During the Franco-Prussian War, the Prussians, knowing that the French could field a larger army than theirs, made a plan that required speed by surrounding the French strongpoints and destroying or bypassing them; it was called the Kesselschlacht, or 'cauldron battle'. The remainder of the army could advance unopposed to take important objectives.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Maneuver warfare

The results of that review were seen in the Franco-Prussian War. Mechanization: In the mid-19th century, various forms of mechanized transport were introduced, starting with trains running on steam power. That resulted in significant logistic improvements. Opposing armies were no longer limited in speed by the pace of march. Some train-borne maneuvering took place during the American Civil War in the 1860s, but the sizes of the armies involved meant that the system could provide only limited support. Armored trains were among the first armored fighting vehicles employed by mankind. During the Franco-Prussian War, the Prussians, knowing that the French could field a larger army than theirs, made a plan that required speed by surrounding the French strongpoints and destroying or bypassing them; it was called the Kesselschlacht, or 'cauldron battle'. The remainder of the army could advance unopposed to take important objectives. If war was declared, Prussia could quickly mobilize and invade, destroy French field forces, and win before the French army could fully react. That tactic was used to devastating effect in 1870 since Prussian forces surrounded and defeated French forces, captured Napoleon III and besieged Paris. The Germans' battle plans for World War I were similar. Germany attempted to repeat the "knock-out blow" against the French armies in the Schlieffen Plan. However, technology evolved significantly in the preceding four decades; both the machine gun and more powerful artillery shifted the balance of power toward the defense. All combatants were desperate to get the front moving again, but that proved to be difficult. Germany introduced new tactics with infiltration and stormtrooper "shock troops" toward the end of World War I to bypass resistance. Russian general Aleksei Brusilov used similar tactics in 1916 on the Eastern Front during the Brusilov Offensive. The introduction of fully armored tanks, in a series of increasingly successful operations, presented a way out of the deadlock of attrition and trench warfare, but World War I ended before the British would field thousands of tanks to be put in a large-scale offense. Fuller had proposed Plan 1919 to use tanks to break through the lines and then to wreak havoc on the German lines of supply and communication. During the interwar period, the British developed ideas for fully-mechanized all-arms warfare with the Experimental Mechanized Force. The Germans reviewed their doctrine and revised their approach by expanding on infiltration tactics and amplifying them with motor transport. Heinz Guderian was a leading proponent of armored combat. The German military stressed several key elements: versatile tanks combined with mobile infantry and artillery, close air support, rapid movement and concentration of forces (Schwerpunkt), and aggressive independent local initiative. All was strictly coordinated by radio and contributed to new tactics during the Battle of France in 1940. Theories in Germany about armored warfare have some similarities with interwar theories of British officers J.F.C. Fuller and B. H. Liddell Hart, which the British army failed to embrace and understand fully. There are similarities between blitzkrieg and the Soviet concept of "deep battle," which the Soviets used to great effect in 1944 and continued to use as a doctrine during the Cold War. Soviet deep battle: In the Soviet Union during the 1920s and the 1930s, the concept of "deep battle" was developed and integrated into the Red Army field regulations doctrine by Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky. That led to the creation of cavalry mechanised groups during World War II and to operational maneuver groups during the Cold War. US Marine Corps doctrine: According to the US Marine Corps, one key concept of maneuver warfare is that maneuver is traditionally thought of as a spatial concept, the use of maneuver to gain positional advantage. The US Marine concept of maneuver, however, is a "warfighting philosophy that seeks to shatter the enemy's cohesion through a variety of rapid, focused, and unexpected actions which create a turbulent and rapidly deteriorating situation with which the enemy cannot cope." The US Marine manual goes on to say: "This is not to imply that firepower is unimportant. On the contrary, firepower is central to maneuver warfare. Nor do we mean to imply that we will pass up the opportunity to physically destroy the enemy. We will concentrate fires and forces at decisive points to destroy enemy elements when the opportunity presents itself and when it fits our larger purposes." The possibility of a massive Soviet offensive in Western Europe led to the creation of the US Army's AirLand battle doctrine. Though far from focusing on maneuver, it emphasized using combined arms to disrupt an enemy's plan by striking through their depth and was seen as moving toward maneuver warfare in comparison to the earlier active defense concept. The AirLand doctrine was seen by Martin van Creveld as "arguably a half way house between maneuver and attrition". British air maneuver doctrine: The British Joint Forces are limited to consider air assault or airmobile operations in their 2016 publication "Joint Doctrine Note on Air Manoeuvre". Limitations in a modern context: A key requirement for success in maneuver warfare is up-to-date accurate intelligence on the disposition of key enemy command, support, and combat units. In operations whose intelligence is either inaccurate, unavailable, or unreliable, the successful implementation of strategies based on maneuver warfare can become problematic. When faced with a maneuverable opponent capable of redeploying key forces quickly and discreetly or when tempered, the capacity of maneuver warfare strategies to deliver victory becomes more challenging. The 2006 Lebanon War is an example of such shortcomings being exposed. Despite overwhelming firepower and complete air superiority, Israeli forces were unable to deliver a decisive blow to the command structure of Hezbollah or to degrade its effective capacity to operate. Although inflicting heavy damage, Israel was unable to locate and destroy Hezbollah's diluted force dispositions or to neutralize key command centers. Therefore, it did not meet its war aims. The insurgency in Iraq also demonstrates that a military victory over an opponent's conventional forces does not automatically translate into a political victory. Some military theorists such as William Lind and Colonel Thomas X. Hammes propose to overcome the shortcomings of maneuver warfare with the concept of what they call fourth generation warfare. For example, Lieutenant-Colonel S.P. Myers writes that "maneuver is more a philosophical approach to campaign design and execution than an arrangement of tactical engagements". Myers goes on to write that maneuver warfare can evolve and that "maneuverist approach in campaign design and execution remains relevant and effective as a counter-insurgency strategy at the operational level in contemporary operations." In the early stages of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia's advances were stalled by Ukraine's widespread deployment of man-portable anti-tank missiles. The scholar Seth Jones argued that Russia was forced to abandon maneuver warfare after an inept failure to apply combined arms, forcing a transition to a war of attrition. In comparison, Ukrainian forces used maneuver warfare more effectively during the 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion while Russian forces struggled to repel the attack. According to Michael Kofman "Russian forces do far better when they’re operating with prepared defense, fixed lines, more on positional warfare." See also: Charge Decision cycle Defeat in detail Flanking maneuver Historical examples of flanking maneuvers OODA loop Pincer movement Russian military deception Operational manoeuvre group References: Sources: Boyd, John. Patterns of Conflict. 1986. Simpkin, Richard E. Race to the Swift: Thoughts on Twenty-First Century Warfare. Brassey's, 2000. Richard Simpkin in association with John Erickson Deep Battle: The Brainchild of Marshal Tukhachevskii, London, Brassey's Defence, 1987. ISBN 0-08-031193-8 Lind, William S. Maneuver Warfare Handbook. 1985. Westview Special Studies in Military Affairs. Westview Press Inc. Boulder, CO. Leonhard, Robert.The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver-Warfare Theory and Air-Land Battle. 1991. Presidio Press. Novato, CA. MajGen Ray Smith, USMC (ret.) and Bing West (1 August 2003). "Implications from Iraqi Freedom for the Marine Corps". Westwrite. Archived from the original on 27 September 2007. Retrieved 19 May 2007. The first war fought under the new doctrine of Maneuver Warfare, with several observations and suggestions for future change.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Marines

History: In the early days of naval warfare, there was little distinction between sailors and soldiers on a warship. The oarsmen of Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman ships had to be capable of fighting the rowers of opposing ships hand-to-hand; though hoplites began appearing on Greek ships specifically for the boarding of enemy ships. The Roman Republic was the first to understand the importance of professional soldiers dedicated to melee combat onboard of ships. During the First Punic War, Roman crews remained inferior in naval experience to the Carthaginians and could not hope to match them in naval tactics, which required great fleet maneuverability and tactical experience. The Romans therefore employed a novel weapon which changed sea warfare to their advantage — they equipped their ships with the corvus, a long pivoting plank with a beak-like spike on the underside for hooking onto enemy ships, possibly developed earlier by the Syracusans against the Athenians during the Sicilian Expedition of the Peloponnesian War. Using it as a boarding bridge, Roman infantrymen were able to invade an enemy ship, transforming sea combat into a version of land combat, where the Roman legionaries had the upper hand. During the early Principate, a ship's crew, regardless of its size, was organized as a centuria. Crewmen could sign on as naval infantry (called Marinus), rowers/seamen, craftsmen and various other jobs, though all personnel serving in the imperial fleet were classed as milites ("soldiers"), regardless of their function; only when differentiation with the army was required, were the adjectives classiarius or classicus added. The Roman Navy's two fleet legions, I Adiutrix and II Adiutrix, were among the first distinct naval infantry units. The first organized marine corps was created in Venice by the Doge Enrico Dandolo when he created the first regiment of ten companies spread on several ships. That corps participated in the conquest of Byzantium (1203–1204), later officially called "Fanti da Mar" (sea infantry) in 1550., Venice also had dedicated naval expeditionary corps of naval infantry recruited primarily from Dalmatia from the local population called the Oltremarini (overseas troops) Later, Spanish King Carlos I assigned the naval infantry of the Compañías Viejas del Mar de Nápoles (Naples Sea Old Companies) to the Escuadras de Galeras del Mediterráneo (Mediterranean Galley Squadrons) in 1537, progenitors of the current Spanish Navy Marines (Infantería de Marina) corps, making them the oldest marine corps still in active service in the world. Etymology and translations: The English noun marine is from the adjective marine, meaning "of the sea", via French marin ("of the sea") from Latin marinus ("of the sea") itself from mare ("sea"), from Proto-Indo-European *móri ("body of water, lake") (cognate with Old English mere ("sea, lake"), Dutch meer, German Meer, all from Proto-Germanic *mari). The word marine was originally used for the marine-type forces of England; however, the word marine or marina means "navy" in many European languages, including Dutch, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Danish, and Norwegian. Because of this, exact one-word translations for the English term "marines" do not exist in many other languages (with the notable exception of the Dutch word marinier). This can lead to misunderstandings when translating. Marine forces in non-English speaking countries typically have names that translate in English to naval infantry or coastal infantry. In French-speaking countries, two phrases exist which could be translated as marine, "troupes de marine" and "fusiliers-marins"; similar phrases exist elsewhere, e.g., in Portuguese Fuzileiros Navais. Roles: The principal role of marine troops is military operations in the littoral zone; operating from ships they are trained to land on and secure key points to around 85 km (or 50 miles) inland, or as far as ship borne logistics can provide. Marine units primarily deploy from warships using boats, landing craft, hovercraft, amphibious vehicles or helicopters. Specialist units are also trained in combat diving/combat swimming and parachuting. As well as amphibious operations, marine troops are used in a variety of other, naval roles. Stationed at naval bases or forming marine detachments on board naval ships, they also conduct small scale raiding, maritime boarding operations, security of naval vessels and bases, riverine and coastal missions, mess duty, and field day operations. In addition to their primary roles, they perform other tasks, including special operations and land warfare, separate from naval operations; ceremonial duties and other miscellaneous tasks as directed by their governments. By country: Algeria: The Marine Fusilier Regiments are the marine infantry regiments of the Algerian Navy and they are specialised in amphibious warfare. The RFM have about 7000 soldiers in their ranks. Established in 1985. Argentina: The Argentine Marine Corps (Infantería de Marina de la Armada de la República Argentina or IMARA) is a part of the Argentine Navy. Argentine marines have the same rank insignia and titles as the rest of the navy, although enlisted personnel have their own parade uniform. The Argentine Marine Corps dates from 1827 when a single infantry battalion was raised. This was expanded in 1880, but seven years later, the corps was merged with the existing coast artillery, to form a Naval Artillery Regiment. A series of reorganizations followed until responsibility for coastal defense was passed to the Argentine Army in 1898. Between 1935 and 1938 the marines reappeared in the form of five battalions of Marine Infantry, serving both on board ship and in coastal defense fortifications. In 1968, the Infantería de Marina was reorganized as a separate corps within the Navy. Australia: The marine and naval infantry designations are not applied to Australian Defence Force units, although some Australian Army units specialise in amphibious warfare, including 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment which has provided an amphibious light infantry role from 2012. Bahamas: The Royal Bahamas Defence Force (RBDF) is the navy of The Bahamas. Since the Bahamas does not have an army or an air force, its navy composes the entirety of its armed forces. The RBDF Commando Squadron is a sizable force of 500 Special Marine Commandos. Bangladesh: The Special warfare Driving and Salvage (SWADS) is special operations force of the Bangladesh Navy. SWADS is trained for the role of naval infantry and it consists of elite soldiers specially chosen form the national armed forces branches. They receive special training in the United States. Bolivia: Even though Bolivia is landlocked, Bolivian politics have always aspired to regain its coastline from Chile, after losing access to the Pacific coast in the 1879-1880 war with Chile. Because of that, Bolivia still maintains a naval force. The Bolivian Naval Force includes about 2,000 naval infantry personnel and marines. These are organized into seven small battalions. Brazil: The Corps of Naval Fusiliers (Corpo de Fuzileiros Navais) is subordinate to the Brazilian Navy. The marine corps is composed of an operational brigade and some guard and ceremonial duty battalions. The main unit is the brigade-sized Divisão Anfíbia (Amphibious Division). Officers´ ranks and titles are the same as for the rest of the Navy, although officers wear a star above the stripes, instead of the loop worn by surface officers. Cambodia: During the 1970-75 Cambodian Civil War the Cambodian Marine Corps were active but were effectively disbanded by the end of the Cambodian–Vietnamese War. The Royal Cambodian Navy created a force of 2,000 marines in 2007 known as the 31st Naval Infantry Brigade Canada: Canada had a history of participating in amphibious operations such as the Normandy landings and the Allied invasion of Sicily. Even though Canada does not have a marine corps, it has units that can carry out Marines-type operations, such as an amphibious-operations trained company of the 3rd Battalion of the Royal 22nd Regiment, JTF2 that specializes in combat diving and amphibious reconnaissance, the Naval Tactical Operations Group that specializes in maritime interdiction, and the Naval Security Team that can provide force protection for amphibious forces. Several authors have written a number of articles in various Canadian professional military journals since 2019 proposing/discussing the creation of a Canadian Arctic amphibious capability, including the adaption of one to three Canadian Army infantry battalions to provide the required landing forces. Chile: The Chilean Marine Corps is a branch of the Chilean Navy. Specialized in amphibious assaults, the corps is built around four detachments based along Chile's long coasts at Viña del Mar, Talcahuano, Punta Arenas, and Iquique. There are also a number of independent companies and platoons, for security protection at naval bases, other shore installations and the Ministry of Defense. The Viña del Mar and Talcahuano detachments contribute to the Amphibious Expeditionary Brigade (Brigada Anfibia Expedicionaria).

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Marines

Several authors have written a number of articles in various Canadian professional military journals since 2019 proposing/discussing the creation of a Canadian Arctic amphibious capability, including the adaption of one to three Canadian Army infantry battalions to provide the required landing forces. Chile: The Chilean Marine Corps is a branch of the Chilean Navy. Specialized in amphibious assaults, the corps is built around four detachments based along Chile's long coasts at Viña del Mar, Talcahuano, Punta Arenas, and Iquique. There are also a number of independent companies and platoons, for security protection at naval bases, other shore installations and the Ministry of Defense. The Viña del Mar and Talcahuano detachments contribute to the Amphibious Expeditionary Brigade (Brigada Anfibia Expedicionaria). There is as a group of Marine Infantry commandos (Grupo de Comandos IM), which together with the group of naval tactical divers (Agrupación de Buzos Tácticos) are part of the Navy's Special Operations Command (Comando de Operaciones Especiales). China: The People's Liberation Army Navy Marine Corps (PLANMC) is a service branch of the PRC navy and is therefore under the command of the PLAN Headquarters. The PLANMC are divided into six brigades. The majority of the PLANMC's personnel is based in the South China Sea. Colombia: The Colombian Marine Corps is a part of the Colombian Navy. The modern marine corps dates from the establishment of two rifle companies in 1936. While remaining a small force, the corps saw service during the civil war between Conservatives and Liberals of 1946–58 and provided volunteers for service in the Korean War. By the 1960s it had been expanded to a battalion of marine infantry plus five independent companies. Croatia: Croatian Navy formed naval infantry companies during the Croatian War of Independence (1991–5), esp. on islands (Hvar: Zvir Company, Korčula: Mixed Detachment etc.) and one in Pula (Vanga Company, saw action in relieving Siege of Dubrovnik and in Operation Maslenica). As they were all dissolved during 2000s, a new naval infantry company, ~160-strong (Satnija mornaričko-desantnog pješaštva) was formed again in 2018 as a part of the Navy Flotilla and is located in Ploče. Cuba: The Cuban Revolutionary Navy (Marina de Guerra Revolucionaria or MGR) maintains a small marine battalion called the Desembarco de Granma. Denmark: The Guard Hussar Regiment (Gardehusarregimentet or GHR) maintains a marine squadron (only by name) which is the Marine Squadron or 4th Training Squadron based in Almegårds Kaserne on the Baltic island Bornholm. The squadron is a part of the 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion and trains conscripts. Ecuador: The Ecuadorian Navy maintains a Naval Infantry Corps (Cuerpo de Infantería de Marina) headquartered in Guayaquil. Formed on 12 November 1962, it is organised into two security battalions, one in the Amazon River area and the other on the Pacific coast. There is also a commando battalion based on the Galápagos Islands. Egypt: The 111th Independent Mechanized Brigade (formerly the 130th Marine Amphibious Brigade) of the Egyptian Army can conduct amphibious assault operations. There is also the 153rd Commando Group with three Marine Commandos Battalions (515th, 616th, 818th) controlling 12 Marine Commandos Companies. El Salvador: The El Salvador Navy included two 600-man Marine Infantry Battalions (Batallon de Infanteria de Marina or BIM), and a 300-man Naval Commando Force. The BIMs were located at La Unión and Usulután. The Salvadoran Marine Corps uses green pixelated and green woodland uniforms. Finland: The Finnish Nyland Brigade (Nylands Brigad) in Ekenäs is the home of the Finnish Coastal Jaegers — the Kustjägarna (in Swedish) / Rannikkojääkärit (in Finnish). The Brigade is part of the Finnish Navy, and the only Swedish-speaking unit within the Finnish Defence Forces. France: The Fusiliers Marins (Naval Fusiliers) and Commandos Marine (Naval Commandos) are naval personnel. The fusiliers marins protect vessels and installations, provide the navy with military training, augment boarding-landing parties and support operations of the Commandos Marine. The Commandos Marine (Naval Commandos) are a seven company Commando formation whose roots can be traced to the Second World War. The Commandos Marine have evolved to be broadly comparable to the British Special Boat Service, with whom they exchange officers. Troupes de Marine ("Marine Troops"), are a branch of the French Army, renamed from the Troupes Coloniales who served in France's overseas territories to maintain or expand French interests. The modern Troupes de Marine have units permanently based in Africa, in addition they man bases in the French Overseas Territories. They now provide the ground combat elements of French amphibious task forces and are specifically trained for that purpose. The 9th Marine Brigade (9e Brigade Légère Blindée de Marine (9 BLBMa)) is twinned with the 3 Commando Brigade of the Royal Marines, organising the exchange of officers and sharing training and exercises. Germany: The Sea Battalion (Seebataillon) is a land formation of the German Navy. It was formed in Eckernförde on 1 April 2014, succeeding the Naval Protection Force. Greece: The Greek 32nd Marine Brigade "Moravas" and the Amphibious Raider Squadrons (known as MAK) of the 13th Special Operations Command are amphibious infantry and maritime operations units maintained by the Hellenic Army and supported by the Hellenic Navy. The brigade traces its origin to 1919 as the 32nd Infantry Regiment but was only in 1967 when it was reorganised and designated as a naval infantry unit under the banner of the 32nd Marines Regiment. Honduras: The Honduran Navy established at least one 600-man marine infantry battalion (Batallón de Infantería de Marina or BIM) in 1982. India: The Indian Army has amphibious units under the Jodhpur-based corps. The Marine Commando Force (MARCOS) is the special operation forces of Indian Navy. Indonesia: In Indonesia, the main amphibious warfare force and naval infantry of the Indonesian National Armed Forces is the Indonesian Marine Corps of the Indonesian Navy. The Marine commandant reports to the Chief of Staff of the Indonesian Navy. Iran: Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the number of marines in the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy (IRIN) has expanded to 2,600 personnel, in two marine brigades, each composed of three battalions. Their mission is to provide security throughout the Arabian Sea and free waters, as well as securing routes for Iranian ships in the Gulf of Aden. The Navy of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGCN) maintains several units that may perform marine-type functions. It also has a Takavar naval commando battalion, called Sepah Navy Special Force (SNSF). They are tasked with providing security in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, as well as conducting anti-piracy missions to assist Iranian ships. Iraq: The Iraqi Navy is a small force with 1,500 sailors and 800 marines designed to protect the shoreline and inland waterways from insurgent infiltration. The navy will have coastal patrol squadrons, assault boat squadrons and a marine battalion. The force will consist of 2,000 to 2,500 sailors by 2010. Israel: Upon its revival in the 1980s the Givati Brigade was intended to serve as the amphibious infantry brigade of the Israel Defense Forces, but this was not put into effect. Currently the 35th Paratroopers Brigade is the only brigade that has amphibious abilities as part of its Depth Warfare arsenal together with parachuting and air assault. Italy: The San Marco Marine Brigade is the marine infantry unit of the Italian Navy (Marina Militare). It traces its roots back to 1550 with the formation of Fanti da Mar in the Republic of Venice. The Serenissima Regiment is the amphibious infantry unit of the Italian Army (Esercito Italiano). Its soldiers are called Lagunari and they are the Italian Army Marines. Japan: Japan Ground Self-Defense Force Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade – Japanese marines tasked with offensive amphibious assault to retake islands. The unit was first formed in 2018 and was the first unit of its kind created since the demilitarisation of Japan after World War II. North Korea: The Korean People's Army's Light Infantry Training Guidance Bureau has two or more amphibious light infantry/sniper brigades. These brigades are believed deployed to Wonsan on the east coast and Namp'o and Tasa-ri on the west coast. In organization and manpower, they are reduced versions of the regular light infantry brigades with a total strength of approximately 5,000 men organized into ten battalions. Each battalion has about 400 men organized into five companies each.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Marines

Its soldiers are called Lagunari and they are the Italian Army Marines. Japan: Japan Ground Self-Defense Force Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade – Japanese marines tasked with offensive amphibious assault to retake islands. The unit was first formed in 2018 and was the first unit of its kind created since the demilitarisation of Japan after World War II. North Korea: The Korean People's Army's Light Infantry Training Guidance Bureau has two or more amphibious light infantry/sniper brigades. These brigades are believed deployed to Wonsan on the east coast and Namp'o and Tasa-ri on the west coast. In organization and manpower, they are reduced versions of the regular light infantry brigades with a total strength of approximately 5,000 men organized into ten battalions. Each battalion has about 400 men organized into five companies each. Some amphibious brigade personnel are trained as frogmen. South Korea: The Republic of Korea Marine Corps is the marine corps of South Korea. It was founded as a reconnaissance force just prior to the start of the Korean War. The ROKMC has seen action in several major conflicts. Though theoretically it is under the direction of the Chief of Naval Operations for all practical purposes it operates as an independent branch of the military. Lebanon: Lebanon maintains an elite but very small in number "Navy Commando" regiment. Trained internationally and armed with mostly American and French made equipment and weaponry. Maldives: The Maldives National Defence Force maintains a frontline ground combat force known as the MNDF Marine Corps. It is divided into Marine Deployment Units (MDUs) which acts as the force projection element MNDF. The MNDF Marine Corps, as a naval unit, works closely with the coast guard of the country. Mexico: The Mexican Naval Infantry (Spanish: Infantería de Marina) of the Mexican Navy is responsible for port security, protection of the ten-kilometer coastal fringe, and patrolling major waterways. Tracing their origins in 1821, the marines have light arms, heavy weapons and armored amphibious vehicles. The Navy ceded most of its riverine responsibilities to the Army, reducing the size of the marine force, and deploying them back aboard ships where they play a vital role in drug interdiction and boarding of suspect vessels in territorial waters. Morocco: The Royal Moroccan Marines are a naval infantry force subordinated to the Royal Moroccan Navy trained in landing missions and sabotage. The force is between 1,500 and 2,000 troops strong, organized in three battalion-strength units. Among its roles are guarding the southern coast against infiltration by Polisario Front guerrillas. Myanmar: The Myanmar Navy raised a naval infantry battalion of 800 men in 1964, followed by a second battalion in 1967. Two more battalions may have also been raised. They were deployed mainly to the Arakan and Tenasserim areas, and to the Irrawaddy delta, to assist in counter-insurgency operations, but also performed other security duties. Namibia: Namibian Marine Corps is a battalion-sized infantry unit of the Namibian Navy under the command of a naval captain. Its officers and men are part of the navy and use naval ranks, though insignia is adopted from the Brazilian Marine Corps. The corps is primarily made up of a Rapid Reaction Unit, an Operation Dive team, an operational boat team, and a Special Operations Commando Unit. Netherlands: The Netherlands Marine Corps (Korps Mariniers) is naval infantry unit of the Royal Netherlands Navy, founded in 1665 as an infantry branch of the Dutch States Navy. They saw their first amphibious action in 1667 during the raid on the Medway. The unit's motto is Qua Patet Orbis ("As Far as the World Extends"). Today, it is a brigade approximately 2300 marines strong, consisting of two marine infantry battalions (plus one infantry company which is stationed in Aruba), one amphibious combat support battalion and one logistical battalion. Dutch Marines train in all possible geographical and climate conditions for their role. Enlisted marine recruit training lasts 33 weeks, and marine officers train up to 18 months (including naval academy time). It has its own Special Forces branch known as Netherlands Maritime Special Operations Forces (NLMARSOF). Norway: The Coastal Ranger Command (Kystjegerkommandoen or KJK) of the Norwegian Navy is an amphibious infantry unit trained to operate in littoral combat theatres, as naval infantry and coastal artillery. There is also an SBS type naval commando unit, the Marinejegerkommandoen or MJK. However, with the KJK being a much younger unit than the MJK, the MJK is not under the KJK but rather than the Norwegian Special Operations Command (NORSOCOM) & Royal Norwegian Navy. Pakistan: The Pakistan Marines division of the Pakistan Navy was re-established on April 14, 1990, with about 3,600 men. The marines are based at PNS Qasim naval base. Paraguay: The Paraguayan Marine Corps (Cuerpo de Fusileros Navales) is a battalion-sized organization consisting of four company-sized brigades. In limited cadre form, the marine corps dates from the late 19th century, although it only achieved significant existence when the three-battalion sized Regimiento de Infanteria de Marina Riachuelo was created in the final stages of the Chaco War of 1932–1935. Peru: The Peruvian Naval Infantry (Infantería de Marina del Perú) consists of around 3,000 naval infantrymen and includes an amphibious brigade of three battalions and local security units with two transport ships, four tank landing ships, and about forty Chaimite armored personnel carriers. They have seen action in Peru's civil war with the Shining Path. Since 1982, IMAP detachments have been deployed, under army command, in counter-insurgency operations. Philippines: The Philippine Marine Corps (PMC) (Hukbong Kawal Pandagat ng Pilipinas) is the marine corps of the Philippines. It is a naval infantry force under the command of the Philippine Navy. PMC primarily conducts amphibious and expeditionary warfare, as well as special operation missions. It has a strength of about 9,500 men organized into three maneuver brigades, a Combat Service and Support Brigade (CSSB), and independent units such as the Marine Special Operations Group (MARSOG) and the Marine Security and Escort Group (MSEG). Formed on November 7, 1950, the Philippine Marine Corps is considered the first and foremost unit to be involved in any amphibious or seaborne clashes. Poland: The Polish Navy maintains several naval infantry units responsible for port and coastal security. The Polish Army maintains the 7th Coastal Defense Brigade, which bears traditions of the disbanded 7th Coastal Defence Division (the Blue Berets), therefore it is sometimes referred to as the Marines of Poland. As of 2010 there are no plans by the Polish Army to create an active marine unit. Therefore, the 7th Brigade carries out only limited-scale exercises of amphibious assaults. Portugal: The third-oldest marine corps in the world was founded as the Terço of the Navy of the Crown of Portugal in 1618. The Portuguese Navy still maintains this Elite Naval Infantry, which is currently known as the Corpo de Fuzileiros. The Corpo de Fuzileiros, meaning literally "Corps of Fusiliers”, is the Elite Infantry and Special Forces unit of the Portuguese Navy. Romania: The 307th Marine Infantry Regiment (Regimentul 307 Infanterie Marină) is the light infantry/reconnaissance unit of the Romanian Naval Forces, subordinated to the Romanian Danube Flotilla since 2015. It is located in Babadag, Tulcea County, and was formed on 29 November 1971 as the 307th Marine Infantry Battalion for the defence of the Danube Delta and Romanian Black Sea shore. Russia: The Russian Naval Infantry (Морская пехота) are the amphibious forces of the Russian Armed Forces. The Russian Navy also has the Russian commando frogmen, an elite unit for underwater reconnaissance and special operations. Saudi Arabia: The Royal Saudi Navy maintains two, 1,500-man marine brigades consisting of three battalions each. The brigades are assigned to the Western Fleet headquartered in Jeddah and the Eastern Fleet headquartered in Jubail. South Africa: South Africa has not had a dedicated marine branch of its military since the apartheid era. A close analogue would be the South African Navy's Maritime Reaction Squadron, a marine-type unit of four companies. Members are marines and use naval ranks. They are trained in infantry combat up to company sized operations. They are also used for crowd control and conduct peacekeeping operations. During peacekeeping operations they are meant to augment an army infantry battalion. Their role is very similar to the now disbanded South African Marine Corps from the apartheid era. The 4 Special Forces Regiment of the South African Special Forces provides South Africa its seaward Special Forces capability.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Marines

Saudi Arabia: The Royal Saudi Navy maintains two, 1,500-man marine brigades consisting of three battalions each. The brigades are assigned to the Western Fleet headquartered in Jeddah and the Eastern Fleet headquartered in Jubail. South Africa: South Africa has not had a dedicated marine branch of its military since the apartheid era. A close analogue would be the South African Navy's Maritime Reaction Squadron, a marine-type unit of four companies. Members are marines and use naval ranks. They are trained in infantry combat up to company sized operations. They are also used for crowd control and conduct peacekeeping operations. During peacekeeping operations they are meant to augment an army infantry battalion. Their role is very similar to the now disbanded South African Marine Corps from the apartheid era. The 4 Special Forces Regiment of the South African Special Forces provides South Africa its seaward Special Forces capability. Spain: The Spanish Navy Marines (Infantería de Marina) are the oldest existing marine force in the world, as they were established on February 27, 1537, by Charles I when he permanently assigned the Compañías Viejas del Mar de Nápoles (Naples Sea Old Companies) to the Escuadras de Galeras del Mediterráneo (Mediterranean Galley Squadrons). Their red trouser stripes mark the Infanteria de Marina as part of the Royal Household Corps and were given by Charles III to the marines in reward for their fierce defence of the Castillo del Morro of Havana, Cuba, in 1762. Sri Lanka: The Sri Lanka Navy established its Sri Lanka Marine Corps in November 2016, and the first group of members were assisted in training by the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit of the United States Marine Corps. The unit became functional after the first group of members consisting of 6 officers and 158 sailors graduated from training on 27 February 2017. Sweden: The Swedish Amphibious Corps (Svenska amfibiekåren) is an arm of the Swedish Navy. The corps consists of two regiments each comprising one amphibious battalion, tasked with reconnaissance, amphibious assaults, and combat on, over, and under the surface of the sea. Syria: The Fouj Al-Mughawayr Al-Bahir (فوج المغاوير البحر meaning "Marines Regiment") is a unit based in Latakia Governorate. It has participated in operations in the Syrian Civil War. Taiwan: Officially the Republic of China but referred to colloquially as Taiwan, the state's military has a naval infantry force known by the English name the Republic of China Marine Corps which was established in 1914 in mainland China following the 1911 Revolution and is the amphibious branch of the Republic of China Navy. It fled with the other ROC forces to Formosa following the Kuomintang's defeat in the Chinese Civil War. They are responsible for amphibious combat, counter-landing, reinforcement of Taiwan and surrounding islands (such as Kinmen, Wuchiu, Matsu Islands, Pratas Island, etc.), and defense of Naval facilities. It also functions as a rapid reaction force (special service company) and a strategic reserve. Thailand: Royal Thai Marine Corps (RTMC) is the naval infantry subbranch of the Royal Thai Navy. The Royal Thai Marine Corps was founded in 1932, when the first battalion was formed with the assistance of the United States Marine Corps. It was expanded to a regiment in 1940 and was in action against communist guerrillas throughout the 1950s and 1960s. During the 1960s, the United States Marine Corps assisted in its expansion into a brigade. The Royal Thai Marine Corps saw action on the Malaysian border in the 1970s and has now been increased to four brigades. Tonga: The Royal Tongan Marines is a sub-unit of the Tongan Maritime Force, which itself is a branch of the Tonga Defence Services. It is a single battalion-sized group composed of a Headquarters Company and three Light Infantry Companies. Turkey: The Amphibious Marine Infantry Brigade Command is the marine force of the Turkish Naval Forces and consists of 4,500 men based in Foça near İzmir. Ukraine: The Ukrainian Marine Corps was founded in 1993 from a unit of the former Soviet Naval Infantry. It served as a coastal defense force of the Ukrainian Navy until 23 May 2023 when it was elevated into a service branch of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The branch is based in Mykolaiv. United Kingdom: The Royal Marines (RM) were formed in 1664 and are part of HM Naval Service. They include an amphibious brigade (which includes commando-trained units and individual personnel from the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force), a naval security unit responsible for guarding the UK's naval nuclear weapons and other security duties, a landing craft and boat-training group which is also a parent unit for three landing craft units deployed on amphibious warfare ships; and a naval musical branch. The RM has close international ties with allied marine forces, particularly the United States Marine Corps and the Netherlands Marine Corps/Korps Mariniers. "Marine" is also used as a rank in the Royal Marines, being equivalent to an army private. The Royal Marines Reserve (RMR) is the volunteer reserve force used to augment the regular Royal Marines in times of war or national crisis. United States: The United States Marine Corps (USMC) is currently the only marine combined-arms force in the world. Created in 1775, it was originally intended only to guard naval vessels during the American Revolutionary War. The USMC is a component part of the US Department of the Navy in the military command structure, with its own representative on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The corps’ major functions include the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and land operations essential to a naval campaign, providing detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the Navy and security detachments for the protection of naval property at naval stations and bases, and such other duties since the president may direct and develop those phases of amphibious operations that pertain to the tactics, technique, and equipment used by landing forces. It also has other missions, including providing personnel as security guards at US diplomatic missions, and providing helicopter transportation for the President of the United States aboard Marine One. The United States Marine Corps Reserve (USMCR) is the reserve force of the United States Marine Corps. Uruguay: The Uruguayan Marine Corps (Cuerpo de Fusileros Navales or FUSNA) is a battalion-sized organization. However, given its small size, it is not a separate corps within the Navy, but regular naval officers are posted to the Marines as to any other Navy unit. Venezuela: The Venezuelan Marine Corps (Infantería de Marina) is a subdivision of the Venezuelan Navy. Headquartered in Meseta de Mamo, Vargas, the estimated numerical strength of this unit is approximately 8,000 men and women. Its mission is to "enlist and direct its units in order to form the disembarking force and/or support of amphibious or special operations; executing naval safeguarding and environmental policing, as well as actively participating in the national development". Vietnam: The Vietnam People's Navy maintains a naval infantry force (Vietnamese: Hải quân Đánh bộ; 海軍打步). It traces its roots during the Vietnam War following the model of the Đặc công sappers but with amphibious capabilities. It first saw action as an official naval infantry force during the Cambodian–Vietnamese War when it ousted the Khmer Rouge from power. It once stood at eleven brigades each of several battalions. Currently the Vietnam People's Navy maintains two naval infantry brigades. Historical marine forces: Ancient Greece: The ancient Greek states did not possess specialized marine infantry; instead, they used hoplites and archers as an onboard contingent (epibatai). Ancient Rome: The Roman Navy used regular infantry as marines. Naval personnel were trained for raiding and also provided the troops for at least two legions (I Adiutrix and II Adiutrix) for service on land. The various provincial fleets were usually provided with marines from the adjacent legions. Australia: Several of the Colonial navies of Australia raised volunteer naval infantry and naval militia brigades in the second half of the 19th century. Following the Federation of Australia they were combined into the Commonwealth Naval Militia. With the formation of the Royal Australian Navy in 1911 they were renamed the Royal Australian Naval Brigade. At its peak in 1915 it numbered 2,817 officers and men. The Naval Brigade was disbanded in 1920 and volunteers were absorbed into the Royal Australian Naval Reserve. Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Empire: Though overshadowed by its Prussian counterpart, the Marinier-Korps, as well as naval powers like the British, the French, the Spanish, and the Italians, Austria-Hungary maintained a small regiment of naval infantrymen dating back to Venetian times alongside the then Austrian Imperial Navy's “Corps of Sailors” (Matrosencorps).

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Marines

Australia: Several of the Colonial navies of Australia raised volunteer naval infantry and naval militia brigades in the second half of the 19th century. Following the Federation of Australia they were combined into the Commonwealth Naval Militia. With the formation of the Royal Australian Navy in 1911 they were renamed the Royal Australian Naval Brigade. At its peak in 1915 it numbered 2,817 officers and men. The Naval Brigade was disbanded in 1920 and volunteers were absorbed into the Royal Australian Naval Reserve. Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Empire: Though overshadowed by its Prussian counterpart, the Marinier-Korps, as well as naval powers like the British, the French, the Spanish, and the Italians, Austria-Hungary maintained a small regiment of naval infantrymen dating back to Venetian times alongside the then Austrian Imperial Navy's “Corps of Sailors” (Matrosencorps). However, in 1868, as part of his naval reforms, then Commander Wilhelm von Tegetthoff abolished the Naval Infantry Regiment and the Naval Artillery Corps in favor of an enlarged and all-encompassing Matrosencorps as by that point, no marines had served aboard a ship for 10 years, and so from that point on, sailors not serving on active warships received infantry drills and took up naval infantry duties. Byzantine Empire: For several centuries, the Byzantine navy used the descendants of the Mardaites, who were settled in southern Anatolia and Greece, as marines and rowers for its ships. Emperor Basil I also established a separate marine regiment, 4,000 strong, for the central Imperial Fleet based at Constantinople. These were professional troops, and were counted among the elite tagmata. In the 1260s, when emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos rebuilt the navy, he recruited the Tzakones (settlers from Laconia) and the Gasmouloi (men of mixed Greek-Latin descent) as special marine troops. Despite the progressive decline and virtual disappearance of the navy, they remained active until the late Palaiologan period. Sangkum era Kingdom of Cambodia/Khmer Republic: The Cambodian Marine Corps, or Corps de Fusiliers-Marins Khmères (CFMK), was founded in 1960 was initially the naval infantry unit of the 1st Kingdom of Cambodia of 1953–1970 under the Royal Khmer Navy of the Royal Khmer Armed Forces (FARK). After Lon Nol’s coup of 1970, FARK was reorganised to be Khmer National Armed Forces (FANK) and the naval infantry came under the jurisdiction of the Khmer National Navy (MNK). The naval infantry took part in the Cambodian Civil War against the Khmer Rouge but was dissolved along with the rest of the Khmer National Armed Forces when the Khmer Republic were defeated and capitulated to the Khmer Rouge. Qing China: The Qing dynasty‘s Beiyang Fleet of the Imperial Chinese Navy maintained a small naval infantry force which at its height reached the size of 300 marines. The marines distinguished themselves visually by their red uniforms as opposed to the regular Beiyang Fleet’s Navy personnels who wear their white dress uniforms for the summer & autumn, and blue dress uniform for the winter & spring. On top of their role as Naval Infantrymen, the Beiyang Fleet marines also took on the fleet's firefighting & military policing duties. The marines saw action at the end of the year following the official end of the First Sino-Japanese War when they attempted to retake Nanbang Fort (南幫炮台) from Japanese forces after it was attacked on Christmas Day of 1895 by an attacking force of 30,000 Japanese with 6,000 Chinese defending the fort; which subsequently fell to Japanese forces on December 29, 1895. Being greatly outnumbered and lacking heavy weapons, the marines failed to dislodge the Japanese from the fort. Manchukuo: Following the 1911 Revolution and the collapse of the Qing dynasty's rule over China followed by its puppeting by the Empire of Japan resulting from Japan's 1931-1932 invasion of Manchuria as part of Japan's imperial expansion into China, the Japanese carved out the state of Manchukuo from the former territories of Manchuria for former Emperor of Qing China; Puyi, to rule over as a puppet Emperor of Manchukuo to Japan. As a result of the surrender of naval assets in the region (then under the jurisdiction of the Kuomintang) under the command of Captain Yin Zuqian (尹祚乾) at Harbin as a result of the invasion, the ships Captain Yin surrendered (which at the time consisted of five river gunboats) eventually became the foundation of the Manchukuo Imperial Navy. The Manchukuo Imperial Navy maintained a naval infantry force of 300 marines. The Manchukuo Marines (滿洲國海軍陸戰隊) were modeled after the naval infantry force of the former Beiyang Fleet's Marines. Denmark-Norway: Marineregimentet (The Marine Regiment) was the naval infantry of the Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy. Leading up to the Denmark–Norway union in 1814, the unit moved to Rendsburg and changed its name to Bornholm Infantry Regiment in 1741 and fell under the jurisdiction of the Royal Danish Army becoming a regular infantry unit. The Bornholm Infantry Regiment continued to exist until its disbandment in 2000. Dutch Republic: The corps was founded on 10 December 1665 during the Second Anglo-Dutch War by the unofficial leader of the republic, Johan de Witt, and Admiral Michiel de Ruyter as the Regiment de Marine. Its leader was Willem Joseph Baron van Ghent. The Dutch had successfully used ordinary soldiers in ships at sea in the First Anglo-Dutch War. It was the fifth European marine unit formed, being preceded by the Spanish Marines (1537), the Portuguese Marines (1610), the French Marines (1622) and the English Royal Marines (1664). Like Britain, the Netherlands has had several periods when its Marines were disbanded. The Netherlands itself was under French occupation or control from 1810 until 1813. A new marine unit was raised on 20 March 1801 during the time of the Batavian Republic and on 14 August 1806 the Korps Koninklijke Grenadiers van de Marine was raised under King Louis Bonaparte. The modern Korps Mariniers dates from 1814, receiving its current name in 1817. The battle honors on the Korps Mariniers' colors are: Raid on the Medway (1667), Kijkduin (1673), Sennefe (1674), Spain, Dogger Bank (1781), West Indies, Algiers (1816), Atjeh, Bali, Rotterdam (1940), Java Sea (1942), Java and Madoera (1947–1948), New Guinea (1962) and Cambodia (1992–1993). Estonia: The Meredessantpataljon, was a short-lived infantry battalion of the Estonian Navy. The battalion was created in 1919 from the crews of the Estonian surface warships and was based in Tallinn. The unit was mainly used on the Southern Front during the Estonian War of Independence. The unit was operational from March to June in 1919. France: The Troupes de marine were founded in 1622 (as compagnies ordinaires de la mer) as land forces under the control of the Secretary of State of the Navy, notably for operations in French Canada. The Compagnies de la Mer were transformed in line infantry regiments by Napoleon, but became once more marine forces in 1822 (for the artillery) and 1831 (for the infantry). These Troupes de marines were in the 19th century the main overseas and colonial forces of the French military. In 1900 they were put under the orders of the War Ministry and took the name of Troupes Coloniales (Colonial Forces). In 1958 the designation of Troupes Coloniales was changed to Troupes d'Outre-Mer (Overseas Forces) but in 1961 it reverted to the original Troupes de marine. Throughout these changes in title, these troops continued to be part of the French Army. Gran Colombia: The Federation of Gran Colombia Marines were formed in 1822 and were disbanded in 1829, Personnel were mostly from Venezuela. Germany: German Empire: During the German Imperial era, three ‘sea battalions’ or Seebataillone based at Kiel, Wilhelmshaven and Tsingtao were maintained. These units served intermittently as colonial intervention forces. The III Seebataillon at the imperial navy's east Asian station at Tsingtao was the only all-German unit with permanent status in a protectorate/colony. The battalion fought at the Siege of Tsingtao. Nazi Germany: The Marinestosstruppkompanie, was a naval infantry of Kriegsmarine in the Second World War. East Germany: The East German army's Nr29.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Marines

Throughout these changes in title, these troops continued to be part of the French Army. Gran Colombia: The Federation of Gran Colombia Marines were formed in 1822 and were disbanded in 1829, Personnel were mostly from Venezuela. Germany: German Empire: During the German Imperial era, three ‘sea battalions’ or Seebataillone based at Kiel, Wilhelmshaven and Tsingtao were maintained. These units served intermittently as colonial intervention forces. The III Seebataillon at the imperial navy's east Asian station at Tsingtao was the only all-German unit with permanent status in a protectorate/colony. The battalion fought at the Siege of Tsingtao. Nazi Germany: The Marinestosstruppkompanie, was a naval infantry of Kriegsmarine in the Second World War. East Germany: The East German army's Nr29. Regiment ("Ernst Moritz Arndt") was a Motorized Rifle Regiment intended for amphibious operations in the Baltic Sea; while the Volksmarine Kampfschwimmer: Combat swimmer units were intended for support of amphibious operations and for raiding. Iran: At the time of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the Imperial Iranian Navy had three battalions of marines. Iraq: The old Ba'athist-era Iraqi Navy maintained several marine companies. The Iraqi Republican Guard maintained a Marine Brigade as part of its 8th As Saiqa Special Forces Division. The brigade was equipped with Brazilian-made Engesa EE-11 Urutu wheeled armored personnel carriers. Fascist Italy: The Blackshirt militia maintained an independent Marine Group with four MVSN battalions (24th, 25th, 50th and 60th). The Decima Flottiglia MAS was an Italian flotilla, with commando frogman unit, of the Regia Marina (Italian Royal Navy). The 3rd Marine Infantry Division "San Marco" was an Italian division raised by Mussolini's Italian Social Republic. Imperial Japan: During the feudal period, the Japanese used Ashigaru soldiers or regular Yumi archers as soldiers to protect ships from pirates. In 1873, a short-lived marine corps was added to the newly created Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN), using Britain's Royal Marines as a model. Considered unsuitable in its original form, the force was disbanded in 1878. The IJN’s land forces maintained several combat units: Special Naval Landing Forces were the Empire of Japan's professional marine corps. Naval Landing Forces were ad-hoc formations of IJN naval personnel formed into naval infantry units for duties ashore. The IJN also maintained the Guard Forces (keibitai) and Defense Units (bobitai), both of whom also received amphibious assault and beach defence training. However, their performance was poor or average when they were used as assault troops. The Imperial Japanese Army's 3,500 man Sea-Landing Brigades (1st to 4th) were used to conduct amphibious assaults on an island, but afterwards they stayed to garrison that island. Ottoman Empire: The role of Ottoman naval infantry originated in Orhan's conquest of the Karasi Beylik and the capture of its fleet. From then on, Janissaries and Azaps were sometimes deployed as marines during the 14th Century. The Deniz azaps were used during the 16th Century; while troops called Levend (Bahriyeli) were raised on and off over the centuries – over 50,000 of them by the late 18th century. The last raised units were the Ta'ifat al Ru'sa (corsair captains militia) recruited from among the North African Arabs and indigenous Berbers. Ottoman marines were part of the Ottoman navy. Portuguese Empire: Portugal raised numerous companies of Special Marines (Fuzileiros Especiais) and African Special Marines (Fuzileiros Especiais Africanos), both at home and in the African colonies of Portuguese Guinea, Portuguese Angola and Portuguese Mozambique, for service in Africa during the Portuguese Colonial Wars. The African Special Marines were all-black units. Russian Empire: Following the establishment of the Imperial Russian Navy in 1696 under Peter the Great, as part of his naval force expansion, Naval Infantry of the Russian Empire (морской пехоты Российской Империи) was formed on November 16, 1705, by using several regiments of marine equipage troops that fought as much on land as they served in ship detachments. One battalion was formed within the Guard, and served on the Imperial family's ships. The Imperial Russia's Naval Infantry have seen action in the Great Northern War during the Battle of Gangut, took part in the capture of Izmail fortress in the Russo-Turkish Wars, distinguished itself by defeating the Napoleonic Army in the Battle of Borodino, Battle of Kulm, and the Siege of Danzig as well as taking part in the amphibious operations in Naples during the Napoleonic War. The Naval Infantry also saw action in the Siege of Sevastopol during the Crimean War, and took part in the defense of Port Arthur during Russo-Japanese War. Its final campaign in World War I saw them deployed to the Baltic Sea to defend against the German attacks as well as the Caspian Sea for operations against the Ottoman Empire. During the Russian Civil War the Imperial Russian Naval Infantry was fractured as the men were divided and ended up joining both sides of the conflict. Naval Infantrymen who joined either the Bolsheviks (such as the Baltic Fleet Naval Infantry) or joined the Whites distinguished themselves in battle for their respective sides. Following victory of the Bolsheviks, surrendering White Naval Infantrymen were either shot on the spot, or were tortured before being executed. Those who sided with the Bolsheviks were absorbed under the banner of the Soviet Navy and formed the backbone of the new Soviet Naval Infantry. Some of these Soviet Naval Infantrymen, particularly members of the Baltic Fleet Naval Infantry who aligned with the Bolsheviks during the civil war would later take part in the 1921 mutiny against the Soviet government on the Kronstadt island fortress shortly following its winding down. Soviet Union: The Soviet Navy had a number of small battalion-sized naval infantry and coastal defence units that mostly served in the ports and bases before the Second World War. During the war, and building on the visuals of the mutinied sailors of Petrograd in 1917, the Stavka ordered formation of naval infantry brigades from surplus ship crew or shore duty sailors. Prior to World War II, members of the Soviet Naval Infantry took part in the 1921 mutiny against the Soviet government by the Baltic Fleet garrison on the Kronstadt island fort on the back end of the Russian Civil War. The mutiny was quickly put down by Soviet forces with retaliation against the rebels by the Soviet government resulting in their eventual execution. South Africa: The South Africa Marine Corps was set up as a subbranch of the South African Navy in 1979, with the primary purpose of protecting harbours. The Marines were disbanded in 1989, following a major restructuring of the Navy at the end of the South African Border War. Spain: The oldest naval infantry. Created 27 February 1537 as Tercio de Armada by Carlos I (Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor 1519–1556). Miguel de Cervantes, famous writer, was a member of naval infantry at Lepanto Battle. United Arab Emirates: In 2011, the UAE Marine Battalion was merged in the United Arab Emirates Presidential Guard. United Kingdom: The Royal Marines date from the establishment of a Maritime Regiment of Foot in 1664. The Marine Regiments for Sea were formed in 1702 but by 1713 they had been disbanded or taken into the army as regiments of foot. In 1755, a permanent corps of marine companies was established for direct service under the Admiralty, and this force has an unbroken descent to the Royal Marines of today. The Royal Navy has since its beginning formed naval landing parties of seamen for action ashore, this being later formalised into the Naval Brigades. These brigades would often dismount guns from their parent vessels for use ashore, these guns often being the only artillery available. The most famous example of this form of land service was provided by the guns accompanying the forces relieving Ladysmith. The Corps of Colonial Marines was raised from former American slaves as auxiliary units of the Royal Marines for service in the Americas: Two of these units were raised and subsequently disbanded. The first was a small unit which existed from 1808 to 12 October 1810, the second was more substantial and existed from May 1814 to 20 August 1816. The Royal Naval Division was part of the Royal Navy in the First World War. In 1914, the shortage of ground forces for the Western Front led to the creation of the Division, composed of two brigades of sailors and a brigade formed by the Royal Marines. The Division was part of the Royal Navy but for command purposes was integrated into the army's command structure. The sailors were initially disappointing as infantry, but eventually developed into one of the better divisions. The Division participated in the defence of the Belgian city of Antwerp in late 1914, and then served with heavy casualties at the Battle of Gallipoli. At different times the Division included various army units. The division ceased to exist after the end of the First World War.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Marines

The first was a small unit which existed from 1808 to 12 October 1810, the second was more substantial and existed from May 1814 to 20 August 1816. The Royal Naval Division was part of the Royal Navy in the First World War. In 1914, the shortage of ground forces for the Western Front led to the creation of the Division, composed of two brigades of sailors and a brigade formed by the Royal Marines. The Division was part of the Royal Navy but for command purposes was integrated into the army's command structure. The sailors were initially disappointing as infantry, but eventually developed into one of the better divisions. The Division participated in the defence of the Belgian city of Antwerp in late 1914, and then served with heavy casualties at the Battle of Gallipoli. At different times the Division included various army units. The division ceased to exist after the end of the First World War. Gooch's Marines, the 61st Foot, raised in the American colonies for the War of Jenkins' Ear in 1739. This was a 3,000 man American regiment of the British Army that served alongside British Marines. Among its officers was Lawrence Washington, half-brother of George Washington. It was disbanded as a regiment in 1742 and the remaining independent companies were merged with another regiment in 1746. United States: American Colonial Marines were State Marines raised for the various state navies that came into existence shortly before the Revolutionary War. The Continental Marines were the marine force of the American Colonies during American Revolutionary War. The corps was formed by the Continental Congress on November 10, 1775, and was disbanded in 1783. The Continental Marines' first and only Commandant was Captain Samuel Nicholas. Hillet Marine River Regiment of the Union Army during the American Civil War, this regiment consisted of 10 rifle companies, a Cavalry Battalion of 5 companies, and an artillery battalion of three batteries, all of whom operated from Mississippi River gunboats as part of the Mississippi River Squadron. The Republic of Texas Marine Corps – Although a marine corps was suggested in the "Act and Decree Establishing a Navy," passed on November 25, 1835, it was not until acting governor James W. Robinson strongly urged the swift formation of such an organization in his message to the General Council on January 14, 1836, that steps were actually taken to commission officers of marines and recruit enlisted personnel. Before the end of the Republic of Texas and annexation to the United States, more than 350 men served with the Texas Marine Corps, and at least eighteen officers were commissioned to command them. The Texas Marine Corps served under the direction of the Navy Department of the Republic, and the duties of the corps were specifically ordained in fifteen articles passed by the Texas Congress on December 13, 1836. Marines served under their own officers aboard ship and ashore but were subject to the orders of the senior naval officer present. The uniform of the Texas Marine came from discontinued USMC stocks, changing only the buttons and cap devices to those of Texas configuration. The Confederate Marines were a branch of the Confederate States Navy and was established by the Confederate Congress on 16 March 1861; they were mainly (80%) defectors from the US Marines. Nguyễn clan of southern Đại Việt: The Nguyễn lords (ancestors of the Nguyễn dynasty) of southern Đại Việt maintained a small naval infantry or marine force. Each marine was referred to as a thủy binh (水兵) or water soldier. South Vietnam: Vietnamese dynasties had a long tradition of utilizing marines. This tradition went back no later than the Annam Protectorate of Tang dynasty when the governors built boats and trained marines to fight off pirates and invaders. The successive Vietnamese dynasties made full use of their marines' superiority at river and sea to launch successful campaigns against their northward and southward neighbors alike. The forerunner of the Republic of Vietnam Marine Corps (VNMC) was established by Ngo Dinh Diem, then prime minister of what was then the State of Vietnam on October 13, 1954. It draws its roots as the naval infantry unit of the Republic of Vietnam Navy under the Vietnamese National Army, which after French decolonisation, would become the Republic of Vietnam Military Forces. The VNMC became defunct on 1 May 1975 after the fall of Saigon. Yugoslavia (SFRY): The 12th Naval Infantry Brigade (12. brigada mornaričko desantne pješadije) of the Yugoslavian Navy of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia consisted of 900 to 2,000 men in three battalions. A multi-ethnic unit, the brigade was broken up during the dissolution of the Yugoslav federation and saw little action. See also: List of marines and naval infantry forces Combat diver Air force infantry Navy References: External links: Media related to Marines at Wikimedia Commons

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Martial law

Overview: Despite the fact that it has been declared frequently throughout history, martial law is still often described as largely elusive as a legal entity. References to martial law date back to 1628 England, when Sir Matthew Hale described martial law as, "no Law, but something indulged rather than allowed as a Law." Despite being centuries old, this quote remains true in many countries around the world today. Most often, the implementation of martial law arises from necessity rather than legal right, and while some countries have provisions explicitly permitting the use of martial law, many do not. For countries that do not explicitly permit the declaration of martial law, but where martial law has been declared, the legal justification for it is often the common law doctrine of necessity, or some variation of it. Common law doctrine of necessity and martial law: One legal theory most frequently associated with martial law is the common law doctrine of necessity. While many countries, the United States for example, do not have the explicit constitutional right to declare martial law, scholars often interpret the law of the United States to allow for the implementation of martial law in times of necessity. Countries such as Pakistan have famously implemented this rationale as well. Use: Martial law can be used by governments to enforce their rule over the public, as seen in multiple countries listed below. Such incidents may occur after a coup d'état (Thailand in 2006 and 2014, and Egypt in 2013); when threatened by popular protest (China, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989); to suppress political opposition (martial law in Poland in 1981); or to stabilize insurrections or perceived insurrections. Martial law may be declared in cases of major natural disasters; however, most countries use a different legal construct, such as a state of emergency. Martial law has also been imposed during conflicts, and in cases of occupations, where the absence of any other civil government provides for an unstable population. Examples of this form of military rule include post World War II reconstruction in Germany and Japan, the recovery and reconstruction of the former Confederate States of America during Reconstruction Era in the United States of America following the American Civil War, and German occupation of northern France between 1871 and 1873 after the Treaty of Frankfurt ended the Franco-Prussian War. Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews; the suspension of civil law, civil rights, and habeas corpus; and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians. Civilians defying martial law may be subjected to military tribunal (court-martial). By country/region: Armenia: During the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, Armenian prime minister Nikol Pashinyan declared martial law. Australia: The Black War was a period of violent conflict between British colonists and Aboriginal Australians in Tasmania from the mid-1820s to 1832. With an escalation of violence in the late 1820s, Lieutenant-Governor George Arthur declared martial law in November 1828—effectively providing legal immunity for killing Aboriginal people. It would remain in force for more than three years, the longest period of martial law in the history of the British colonies on the Australian continent. As of 2023, martial law has never been declared since federation in 1901. Azerbaijan: During the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev declared martial law. Bahrain: In 2011, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa declared martial law during an anti-government uprising, granting authority to the police and military to crack down on protesters. It was lifted on 1 June amid a continuing crackdown on the uprising. Brunei: Brunei has been under martial law since a rebellion occurred on 8 December 1962 and was put down by British troops from Singapore. The Sultan of Brunei, Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu'izzaddin Waddaulah, is presently the head of state and also the Minister of Defense and Commander in Chief of Royal Brunei Armed Forces. Canada: The War Measures Act was a Parliament of Canada statute that allowed the government to assume sweeping emergency powers, stopping short of martial law, i.e., the military did not administer justice, which remained in the hands of the courts. The act was invoked three times: During World War I, World War II, and the October Crisis of 1970. In 1988, the War Measures Act was replaced by the Emergencies Act, which saw its first invocation in February 2022 amidst the Freedom Convoy protests. During the colonial era, martial law was proclaimed and applied in the territory of the Province of Quebec during the invasion of Canada by the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War in 1775–1776. It was also applied twice in the Province of Lower Canada during the 1837–1838 insurrections. On December 5, following the events of November 1837, martial law was proclaimed in the district of Montreal by Governor Gosford, without the support of the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada. It was imposed until April 27, 1838. Martial law was proclaimed a second time on November 4, 1838, this time by acting Governor John Colborne, and was applied in the district of Montreal until August 24, 1839. China: In China, martial law in the Beiyang government could be dated back to the final year of the Qing dynasty. The outline of a 1908 draft constitution—modeled on Japan's Meiji Constitution—included provisions for martial law. The Provisional Government of the Republic of China promulgated the Provisional Constitution in March 1911, which authorized the President to declare martial law in times of emergency. The Martial Law Declaration Act were issued by the Nationalist Government later in 1920s and amended in 1940s. Following World War II, the island of Taiwan came back to China's control given the impending withdrawal of Japanese forces and colonial government. Martial law was declared first in 1947 in Taiwan Province after the February 28 incident, then again in 1949 as the Chinese Civil War was also raging across the country despite the democracy promised in the Constitution of the Republic of China (the central government refused to implement the constitution on Taiwan until after 1949). After the Nationalist-led central government of China lost control of the mainland to the Chinese Communist Party and retreated to Taiwan in 1949, the perceived need to suppress Communist activities in Taiwan was utilised as a rationale for not lifting martial law until thirty-eight years later in 1987, just prior to the death of then President Chiang Ching-kuo. Taiwan's period of martial law was one of the longest in modern history, after that of Syria (1967–2011). Martial law was imposed in Beijing in 1989 following the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 by the Communist-ruled government on mainland China. Egypt: In Egypt, states of emergency were in effect almost continuously from 1967 to 2021. A state of emergency gives military courts the power to try civilians and allows the government to detain for renewable 45-day periods and without court orders anyone deemed to be threatening state security. Public demonstrations are banned under the legislation. During Hosni Mubarak's presidency, parliament had renewed emergency laws every three years since they were imposed. The legislation was extended in 2003 and were due to expire at the end of May 2006; plans were in place to replace it with new anti-terrorism laws. After the Dahab bombings in April of that year, it was renewed for another two years. In May 2008 there was a further extension to June 2010. In May 2010, the state of emergency was further extended, albeit with a promise from the government to be applied only to 'Terrorism and Drugs' suspects. On 10 February 2011, during the uprising against his rule, Mubarak promised the deletion of the relevant constitutional article regarding the emergency law in an attempt to please the mass number of protesters that demanded him to resign. The following day, he stepped down and handed control of the country to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. It meant that the presidential executive powers, the parliamentary legislative powers and the judicial powers all transferred directly to the military system which may delegate powers back and forth to any civilian institution within its territory. The military issued in its third announcement the "end of the State of Emergency as soon as order is restored in Egypt". Before martial law, the Egyptian parliament under the constitution had the civilian power to declare a state of emergency. When in martial law, the military gained all powers of the state, including to dissolve the parliament and suspend the constitution as it did in its fifth announcement. Under martial law, the only legal framework within the Egyptian territory was the numbered announcements from the military. These announcements could for instance order any civilian laws to come back into force. The military announcements (communiqués) were the de facto only constitution and legal framework for the Egyptian territory. It meant that all affairs of the state were bound by the Geneva Conventions. Under the current president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a series of constitutional amendments passed in 2019 granted the military authority to intervene in national politics to "preserve the constitution and democracy, protect the basic principles of the state and its civil nature, and protect the people's rights and freedoms". The armed forces were separately granted policing responsibilities to arrest civilians and "protect public and vital facilities".

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Martial law

When in martial law, the military gained all powers of the state, including to dissolve the parliament and suspend the constitution as it did in its fifth announcement. Under martial law, the only legal framework within the Egyptian territory was the numbered announcements from the military. These announcements could for instance order any civilian laws to come back into force. The military announcements (communiqués) were the de facto only constitution and legal framework for the Egyptian territory. It meant that all affairs of the state were bound by the Geneva Conventions. Under the current president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a series of constitutional amendments passed in 2019 granted the military authority to intervene in national politics to "preserve the constitution and democracy, protect the basic principles of the state and its civil nature, and protect the people's rights and freedoms". The armed forces were separately granted policing responsibilities to arrest civilians and "protect public and vital facilities". Finland: The Preparedness Act (SDK 1552/2011, Finnish: valmiuslaki) is a law in Finnish legislation, enacted in accordance with the constitutional procedure. The purpose of the Act is to give the authorities sufficient powers in times of war and other exceptional circumstances. During a state of defence (war), there is also the Defence Status Act, the provisions of which override the Preparedness Act. Together, the two laws form the Emergency Preparedness Act. The current Emergency Preparedness Act and its predecessor of the same name (1080/1991) were designed to replace the emergency provisions previously scattered over several different acts. Iceland: The Icelandic constitution provides no mechanism for the declaration of war, martial law nor state of emergency. India: There is no implicit mention of Martial Law in the Indian constitution with the exception of Article 34 which gives Parliament the power to indemnify persons in respect of acts done in territories where martial law was in force and to legitimize such actions. But in the text itself, there is no mention of any grants of power to declare Martial Law. During the British Raj, Martial law was effectively declared in the Defense of India Act, 1915 and the Defense of India Act, 1939. It was also declared in most of the Punjab during 1919 as a response to tensions caused by the Amritsar Massacre. These tensions were caused due to the controversial Rowlatt Act. Indonesia: On 18 May 2003, during a military activity in Aceh, under the order of the president, Indonesian Army Chief imposed martial law for a period of six months to eliminate Acehnese separatists. Iran: On 7 September 1978, in response to public demonstrations protesting the perceived government involvement in the death of the son of Ayatollah Khomeini, Mostafa Khomeini, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi appointed Chief of Army Staff General Gholam Ali Oveisi as the military governor of the capital city of Tehran. On 8 September, the government effectively declared martial law on the capital along with several other cities throughout the country, after which further protests erupted that lead to the army opening fire on a group of protesters in Tehran's Jaleh Square on the same day. Estimates on the number of casualties vary; However, according to Iranian human rights activist Emadeddin Baghi, the number of people killed was 88 of which 64 were gunned down in Jaleh Square. The day is often referred to as Black Friday. Unable to control the unrest, the Shah dissolved the civil government headed by Prime Minister Jafar Sharif-Emami on 6 November and appointed General Gholam Reza Azhari as the prime minister whom ultimately failed in his efforts to restore order to the country. As he was preparing to leave the country, the Shah dissolved the military government and appointed Shapour Bakhtiar, a reformist critic of his rule, as the new prime minister on 4 January 1979. Bakhtiar's government fell on 11 February and gave rise to the Islamic Republic and the creation of a new constitution. Article 79 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran forbids the proclamation of martial law without the approval of the Islamic Consultative Assembly. Ireland: In 1916, during the Easter Rising, Lord Wimborne the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, declared martial law to maintain order in the streets of Dublin. This was later extended both in duration and geographical reach to the whole of the country with the consent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland government. Much of Ireland was declared under martial law by the British authorities during the Irish War of Independence. A large portion of Ireland was also under de facto martial law during the Irish Civil War. In late July 1921 Lord Cave (House of Lords) ruled on an appeal that:"...the military court, the validity of whose sentence was called into question, was a body possessing no statutory or common law authority...". The Court of Chancery (Ireland) also ruled that the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act 1920 had superseded the power to declare martial law. Any sentences by military tribunals that were not in accordance with that Act were declared void. The current Irish Constitution allows for martial law if the government declares a state of emergency; however capital punishment is prohibited in all circumstances, including a state of emergency. Israel: Military administrative government was in effect from 1949 to 1966 over some geographical areas of Israel having large Arab populations, primarily the Negev, Galilee, and the Triangle. The residents of these areas were subject to martial law. The Israel Defense Forces enforced strict residency rules. Any Arab not registered in a census taken during November 1948 was deported. Permits from the military governor had to be procured to travel more than a given distance from a person's registered place of residence, and curfew, administrative detentions, and expulsions were common. Although the military administration was officially for geographical areas, and not people, its restrictions were seldom enforced on the Jewish residents of these areas. In the early 1950s, martial law ceased to be in effect for those Arab citizens living in predominantly Jewish cities of Jaffa, Ramla, and Lod, constituting a total of approximately 15% of the Arab population of Israel. But military rule remained in place on the remaining Arab population elsewhere within Israel until 1966. This period is remembered for its extreme crackdown on political rights, as well as unaccountable military brutality. Most political and civil organization was prohibited. Flying of Palestinian flag, as well as other expressions of Palestinian patriotism were prohibited. Furthermore, despite theoretical guarantee of full political rights, military government personnel frequently made threats against Arabs citizens if they did not vote in elections for the candidates favored by the authorities. Perhaps the most commemorated incidence of military brutality in this time period was the Kafr Qasim massacre in 1956, in which the Israel Border Police killed 48 people (19 men, 6 women and 23 children aged 8–17) as they were returning home from work in the evening. The Israeli army had ordered that all Arab villages in the proximity of the Green Line be placed under curfew. However, this order came into effect before the residents of these localities, including residents of Kafr Qasim, were notified. Following the 1967 war, in which the Israeli army occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights in Syria, and the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, martial law over the Palestinian population as well as the Jordanian, Syrian, and Egyptian populations in these areas was put in place. In 1993, the Oslo I agreements facilitated limited self-rule for Palestinians under the Palestinian National Authority. Officially, only parts of Area C in the West Bank are under martial law. During the 2006 Lebanon war, martial law was declared by Defense Minister Amir Peretz over the north of the country. The Israel Defense Forces were granted the authority to issue instructions to civilians, and to close down offices, schools, camps and factories in cities considered under threat of attack, as well as to impose curfews on cities in the north. Instructions of the Home Front Command are obligatory under martial law, rather than merely recommended. The order signed by Peretz was in effect for 48 hours and was extended by the Cabinet and the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee over the war's duration. Mauritius: Mauritius is known as being a "Westminster" style of democracy but a peculiar system that was imposed in Mauritius during a period of civil unrest in 1968 as an emergency measure, has never been repealed and is still used by the police force there to this day. The system, which has no apparent foundation in the constitution of Mauritius, enables the police to arrest without having to demonstrate reasonable suspicion that a crime has been carried out but simply on the submission of "provisional information" to the magistrate. The accused is then placed on remand or bail and required to report to the police or the court on a regular basis, sometimes every day. There are examples of this system being used to intimidate or coerce individuals in civil litigations. Myanmar: On 1 February 2021, democratically elected members of Myanmar, known as the National League for Democracy, were overthrown by Myanmar's military, called the Tatmadaw. This military placed their power in a military junta. Five days following the coup, factory workers around Yangon (a region in Myanmar) held protests against the coup regime. On 14 March, security forces killed upwards of sixty-five protestors in the town of Hlaingtharyar.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Martial law

The accused is then placed on remand or bail and required to report to the police or the court on a regular basis, sometimes every day. There are examples of this system being used to intimidate or coerce individuals in civil litigations. Myanmar: On 1 February 2021, democratically elected members of Myanmar, known as the National League for Democracy, were overthrown by Myanmar's military, called the Tatmadaw. This military placed their power in a military junta. Five days following the coup, factory workers around Yangon (a region in Myanmar) held protests against the coup regime. On 14 March, security forces killed upwards of sixty-five protestors in the town of Hlaingtharyar. As a result, the military junta declared martial law over the region of Yangon, including over the majority of industrial zones. As of 22 February 2023, Myanmar's military junta has declared martial law over a total of 50 townships in the regions of Chin, Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Mon States, Yangon and Mandalay. News reports indicate that since the military coup in February 2021, and the subsequent declaration of martial law in Myanmar regions, military tribunals have sentenced more than 100 people to death. Reports further indicate that a total of three townships in Myanmar's northwest reside under the "executive and judicial jurisdiction of regional military commander Maj. Gen. Than Htike," who has since been sanctioned by the European Union for alleged human rights violations since Myanmar's declaration of martial law. Pakistan: Martial law was declared in Pakistan on 7 October 1958, by President Iskander Mirza who then appointed General Muhammad Ayub Khan as the Chief Martial Law Administrator and Aziz Ahmad as Secretary General and Deputy Chief Martial Law Administrator. However, three weeks later General Ayub—who had been openly questioning the authority of the government before the imposition of martial law—deposed Iskandar Mirza on 27 October 1958 and assumed the presidency that practically formalized the militarization of the political system in Pakistan. Four years later a new document, Constitution of 1962, was adopted. The second martial law was imposed on 25 March 1969 by Yahya Khan, when President Yahya Khan abrogated the Constitution of 1962 and Ayub Khan handed over power to the Army Commander-in-Chief, General Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan. On assuming the presidency, General Yahya Khan acceded to popular demands by abolishing the one-unit system in West Pakistan and ordered general elections on the principle of one man one vote. The civilian martial law was imposed by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the first civilian to hold this post in Pakistan after the Bangladesh Liberation War. On 21 December 1971, Bhutto took this post as well as that of President.It was the first civilian martial law. The third was imposed by the General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq on 5 July 1977. After several tumultuous years, which witnessed the secession of East Pakistan to form Bangladesh, politician Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took over in 1971 as the first civilian martial law administrator in recent history, imposing selective martial law in areas hostile to his rule, such as the country's largest province, Balochistan. Following widespread civil disorder, General Zia overthrew Bhutto and imposed martial law in its totality on 5 July 1977, in a bloodless coup d'état. Unstable areas were brought under control through indirect military action, such as Balochistan under Martial Law Governor, General Rahimuddin Khan. Civilian government resumed in 1988 following General Zia's death in an aircraft crash. On 12 October 1999, the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was dissolved, and the Army took control once more. A fourth martial law was imposed. General Pervez Musharraf took the title of Chief Executive until the President of Pakistan Rafiq Tarar resigned and General Musharraf became president. Elections were held in October 2002 and Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali became Prime Minister of Pakistan. Jamali's premiership was followed by Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Shaukat Aziz. While the government was supposed to be run by an elected prime minister, there was a common understanding that important decisions were made by the President General Musharraf. General Pervez Musharraf pointed out it as an emergency, not Martial Law. The Constitution, Parliament and Provincial Assemblies were suspended and Musharraf issued "Proclamation of Emergency" on 14 October 1999. On 3 November 2007, President General Musharraf declared the state of emergency in the country which is claimed to be equivalent to the state of martial law as the constitution of Pakistan of 1973 was suspended, and the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court were fired. On 12 November 2007, Musharraf issued some amendments in the Military Act, which gave the armed forces some additional powers. Philippines: During the Second World War, President José P. Laurel placed the Philippines (then a client state of Imperial Japan) under martial law via Proclamation № 29, dated 21 September 1944 and enforced the following day at 09:00 PST. Proclamation № 30 was issued on 23 September, declaring the existence of a state of war between the Philippines and the United States and the United Kingdom, effective 10:00 that day. The country was under martial law again from 1972 to 1981 under President Ferdinand Marcos. Proclamation № 1081 ("Proclaiming a State of Martial Law in the Philippines") was signed on 21 September 1972 and came into force on 23 September. The official reason behind the declaration was to suppress increasing civil strife and the threat of a communist takeover, particularly after a series of bombings (including the Plaza Miranda bombing) and an assassination attempt on Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile in Mandaluyong. The policy of martial law was initially well received, but it eventually proved unpopular as the military's human rights abuses (e.g. use of torture in intelligence gathering, forced disappearances), along with the decadence and excess of the Marcos family and their allies, had emerged. Coupled with economic downturns, these factors fermented dissent in various sectors (e.g. the urban middle class) that crystallised with the assassination of jailed oppositionist Senator Benigno Aquino Jr. in 1983, and widespread fraud in the 1986 snap elections. These eventually led to the 1986 People Power Revolution that ousted Marcos and forced him into exile in Hawaii where he died in 1989; his rival presidential candidate and Aquino's widow, Corazon, was installed as his successor. During this 9-year period, curfews were implemented as a safety measure. Majority of radio and television networks were suspended. Journalists who were accused of speaking against the government were taken as political prisoners, some of them to be physically abused and tortured by the authorities. Others have stated that the implementation of Martial Law was taken advantage by the Marcos regime. Billion pesos worth of property and ill-gotten wealth was said to be acquired by Marcos' consort, First Lady Imelda Marcos. This alleged money laundering issue was brought back recently, particularly in the PiliPinas Debates 2016 for the recently held Philippine Presidential Elections on May 9, 2016. Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr., Marcos' son, ran for the vice presidency and lost. There were rumours that President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was planning to impose martial law to end military coup d'etat plots, general civilian dissatisfaction, and criticism of her legitimacy arising from the dubious results of the 2004 presidential elections. Instead, a State of National Emergency was imposed in 2006 from 24 February to 3 March, in order to quash a coup attempt and quell protesters. On 4 December 2009, President Arroyo officially placed the Province of Maguindanao under a state of martial law through Proclamation № 1959. As with the last imposition, the declaration suspended the writ of habeas corpus in the province. The announcement came days after hundreds of government troops were sent to the province to raid the armories of the powerful Ampatuan clan. The Ampatuans were implicated in the massacre of 58 persons, including women from the rival Mangudadatu clan, human rights lawyers, and 31 media workers. Cited as one of the bloodiest incidents of political violence in Philippine history, the massacre was condemned worldwide as the worst loss of life of media professionals in one day. On 23 May 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte declared martial law throughout the main southern island of Mindanao, through Proclamation No. 216, due to the attack of Maute Group in Marawi City, Lanao del Sur. It was announced in a briefing in Moscow by Secretary Ernesto Abella, and was in effect until December 2019. Poland: Martial law was introduced in Polish People's Republic on 13 December 1981, by General Wojciech Jaruzelski to prevent the extraparliamentary opposition from gaining popularity and political power in the country. Thousands of people linked to the Solidarity Movement, including Lech Wałęsa, were arbitrarily arrested and detained. Approximately 91 deaths are attributed to the martial law, including 9 miners shot by the police force during the pacification of striking Wujek Coal Mine.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Martial law

On 23 May 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte declared martial law throughout the main southern island of Mindanao, through Proclamation No. 216, due to the attack of Maute Group in Marawi City, Lanao del Sur. It was announced in a briefing in Moscow by Secretary Ernesto Abella, and was in effect until December 2019. Poland: Martial law was introduced in Polish People's Republic on 13 December 1981, by General Wojciech Jaruzelski to prevent the extraparliamentary opposition from gaining popularity and political power in the country. Thousands of people linked to the Solidarity Movement, including Lech Wałęsa, were arbitrarily arrested and detained. Approximately 91 deaths are attributed to the martial law, including 9 miners shot by the police force during the pacification of striking Wujek Coal Mine. Curfews, censorship and food rationing were in place. A nationwide travel ban was imposed. The martial law was eventually lifted on 22 July 1983. Contemporary Polish society is divided in opinion on the necessity of introducing martial law in 1981. It is viewed by some as a lesser evil that was necessary to stop a potential Soviet military intervention as the Warsaw Pact, which Poland signed in 1955, enabled other Eastern Bloc countries to intervene if they believed that communism was in danger. Russian Federation: In the Russian Federation recourse to martial law is governed by a document passed 30 January 2002 as No. 1-FKZ (1-ФКЗ). South Korea: In October 1946, United States Army Military Government in Korea declared martial law as a result of the Daegu Riot. On 17 November 1948, President Syngman Rhee's regime proclaimed martial law in order to quell the Jeju Uprising. On 19 April 1960, the Rhee government proclaimed martial law again in order to suppress the April Revolution. Switzerland: There are no provisions for martial law as such in Switzerland. Under the Army Law of 1995, the Army can be called upon by cantonal (state) authorities for assistance (Assistenzdienst). This regularly happens in the case of natural disasters or special protection requirements (e.g., for the World Economic Forum in Davos). This assistance generally requires parliamentary authorization, though, and takes place in the regular legal framework and under the civilian leadership of the cantonal authorities. On the other hand, the federal authorities are authorized to use the Army to enforce law and order when the Cantons no longer can or want to do so (Ordnungsdienst). With this came many significant points of reference. This power largely fell into disuse after World War II. Syria: The martial law regime between the 1963 Syrian coup d'état and 2011 is the longest ranging period of active martial law. Similar to other countries, martial law in Syria was established as a response to the declaration of a state of emergency. When on 8 March 1963, the Baath Party seized power, the prime minister of Syria, acting as the martial law governor, was granted extraordinary powers through his declaration of a state of emergency. Syrian laws enabled the martial law governor to place many restrictions on freedoms of individuals, such as with respect to "meetings, residence, travel and passage in specific places or at particular times; to preventatively arrest anyone suspected of endangering public security and order; to authorize investigation of persons and places; and to delegate any person to perform any of these tasks." However, the state of emergency declaration in Syria remained intact for nearly 50 consecutive years, prompting intervention and commentary from the international community. International bodies declared such an extended state of emergency as against international law. Specifically, it was held to be in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter "ICCPR"), which Syria is a party to. Article 4 of the ICCPR "limits the application of emergency laws to a time of 'public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed.' It further stipulates that the state parties to the ICCPR may derogate from their obligations under the treaty only 'to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law.'" In 2000, Syria responded to the allegations from the ICCPR, and countered that it was in compliance with the ICCPR in a report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. Syria justified this ongoing declaration of emergency through their concerns of ongoing threats of war by Israel. On 28 July 2005, the United Nations responded: "Nothing with concern that the state of emergency declared some forty years ago is still in force and provides for many derogations in law or practice from the rights guaranteed under articles 9 14, 19, and 22, among others, of the Covenant, without any convincing explanation being given as to the relevance of these derogations to the conflict with Israel and as to the necessity of these derogations to meet the exigencies of the situation claimed to have been created by the conflict." In further response, Syria reiterated their position that the ongoing emergency declaration was due to a continued threat of war with Israel. Despite ongoing dialogue over a period of years between Syria, the ICCPR, and the United Nations, the declaration remained in effect for the next six years from the 2005 statement made by the United Nations advising of the invalidity of such an extensive state of emergency declaration. Ultimately, after 48 years, in April 2011, President Bashar al-Assad ended Syria's state of emergency, thereby signaling the end of the longest martial law ruling in history. This came as a response to protests demanding freedom from the historically long police rule over Syria. Taiwan: Martial law was in force in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, for a total of 38 consecutive years. Martial law in Taiwan refers to the periods in the history of Taiwan after World War II that are under the control by the Republic of China Armed Forces of the Kuomintang-led Government of the Republic of China regime. This qualified as "the longest imposition of martial law by a regime anywhere in the world" at that time, but has since been surpassed by Brunei and Syria. Thailand: Martial law in Thailand derives statutory authority from the Act promulgated by King Vajiravudh following the abortive Palace Revolt of 1912, entitled "Martial Law, B.E. 2457 (1914)". Many coups have been attempted or succeeded since then, but the Act governing martial law, amended in 1942, 1944, 1959 and 1972, has remained essentially the same. In January 2004, the Prime Minister of Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra, declared a state of martial law in the provinces of Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat in response to the growing South Thailand insurgency. On 19 September 2006, the Royal Thai Armed Forces declared martial law following a bloodless military coup in the Thai capital of Bangkok, declared while Prime Minister Shinawatra was in New York City to address the United Nations General Assembly. General Sonthi Boonyaratglin took the control of the government, and soon after handed the premiership to ex-Army Chief General Surayud. Sonthi himself is Chief of the Administrative Reform Council. At 3 am, on 20 May 2014, following seven months of civil and political unrest, Army Commander-in-Chief Gen. Prayut Chan-ocha, declared martial law nationwide. Turkey: Since the foundation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923 the Turkish Armed Forces conducted three coups d'état and announced martial law. First was established following the 1960 Turkish coup d'état which toppled down Democrat Party government and executed its 3 leader. Another martial law was established after 1971 Turkish military memorandum for a short period of time to impose reforms to confront escalated domestic violence, which was not successful. As confrontation between far-left and far-right groups grew, martial law is established in 1978 and 1980 Turkish coup d'état followed afterwards that kept in place until 1983. The martial law between 1978 and 1983 was replaced by a state of emergency in a limited number of provinces that lasted until November 2002. The Peace at Home Council's official statement in a broadcast on TRT during the 2016 coup attempt included a declaration of martial law. Ukraine: The restrictions from martial law were defined in a 2015 law "On the Legal Regime of Martial Law". The President decides on the declaration of martial law and then Verkhovna Rada must approve it. Martial law was first declared in Ukraine in 2018 and as a response to Russian hostilities. On 26 November 2018, lawmakers in the Verkhovna Rada overwhelmingly backed President Petro Poroshenko's imposition of martial law along Ukraine's coastal regions and those bordering the Russian Federation and Transnistria, an unrecognized breakaway state of Moldova which has Russian troops stationed in its territory, in response to the firing upon and seizure of Ukrainian naval ships by Russia near the Crimean Peninsula a day earlier. A total of 276 lawmakers in Kyiv backed the measure, which took effect on 28 November 2018 and automatically expired in 30 days. This period of martial law was both intended to be, and ultimately was, limited in scope.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Martial law

The President decides on the declaration of martial law and then Verkhovna Rada must approve it. Martial law was first declared in Ukraine in 2018 and as a response to Russian hostilities. On 26 November 2018, lawmakers in the Verkhovna Rada overwhelmingly backed President Petro Poroshenko's imposition of martial law along Ukraine's coastal regions and those bordering the Russian Federation and Transnistria, an unrecognized breakaway state of Moldova which has Russian troops stationed in its territory, in response to the firing upon and seizure of Ukrainian naval ships by Russia near the Crimean Peninsula a day earlier. A total of 276 lawmakers in Kyiv backed the measure, which took effect on 28 November 2018 and automatically expired in 30 days. This period of martial law was both intended to be, and ultimately was, limited in scope. Then-president Poroshenko proposed a 60-day martial law period, but ultimately a 30-day period of martial law was signed into effect. This period of martial law came to an end at its scheduled 30-day mark. This declaration was limited to specific areas of Ukraine, including territories along the Russia-Ukraine border, the Moldova-Ukraine border, the coasts of the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the Azov – Kerch international waters. On 24 February 2022, President Volodymyr Zelensky declared martial law in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Then, on 15 March, the Parliament of Ukraine adopted the Law of Ukraine "On Organizing Labor Relations under Martial Law" which came into effect on March 24, 2022, and "clarified relevant restrictions of the constitutional right and freedoms and set out special rules applicable to labor relations to replace the 'normal' rules of the Labour Code of Ukraine." Article 4(7) of the Law of Ukraine holds that the "General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine shall direct, coordinate and control the activities of regional military administrations on defense, public safety, and order, and implement measures of martial law. The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine shall direct, coordinate and control the regional military administrations regarding other issues." As of November 2023, there have been ten extensions to the Ukrainian declaration of martial law. This has led to the 2023 legislative and 2024 presidential elections being delayed, due to elections not being allowed to be held in times of martial law. United States: In the United States martial law has been declared for a state or other locality under various circumstances including after a direct foreign attack (Hawaii after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor; New Orleans during the Battle of New Orleans); after a major disaster (Chicago after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871; San Francisco after the earthquake of 1906); and in response to chaos associated with protests and mob action (San Francisco during the 1934 West Coast waterfront strike; Montgomery, Alabama, following the mob actions against the Freedom Riders). It has also been declared by renegade local leaders seeking to avoid arrest or challenges to their authority (Nauvoo, Illinois by Joseph Smith during the Illinois Mormon War and Utah by Governor Brigham Young during the Utah War). The martial law concept in the United States is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is related to the imposition of martial law. Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." There have been many instances of the use of the military within the borders of the United States, such as during the Whiskey Rebellion and in the South during the Civil Rights Movement, but these acts are not tantamount to a declaration of martial law. In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which, depending on the circumstances, can forbid U.S. military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.(18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) The legality of the implementation of martial law was examined in 1866, in the court case Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866). Through this case, the Supreme Court established that trying civilians in military tribunals was unconstitutional unless there were no civilian courts available. Today, the ability to declare martial law over the United States is not explicitly granted in the Constitution. Despite this, martial law has been declared at least 68 times in the United States. There are two main schools of thought regarding the declaration of martial law. First, some scholars argue that the ability to declare martial law is a constitutional power vested in Congress, and in some cases of emergency, the President. The second school of thought believes that the power to declare martial law in the United States is not expressed in any law, but rather arises as a matter of necessity and in the interests of "national self-preservation." As it stands today, there is no explicit provision in the Constitution granting powers to any specific body of government to declare martial law. Historically, martial law has been declared in response to national emergencies in the United States. In Hawaii, for example, martial law was instituted following the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Supreme Court evaluated the legality of declaring martial law in Hawaii in the court case Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946). Here, the Supreme Court held that although Hawaii was not yet a state, the legality of declaring martial law must be analyzed as though Hawaii was one. As a result, the United States determined that the safety of the residents of Hawaii was their responsibility, and martial law was implemented throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Yugoslavia: During the Yugoslav Wars in 1991, a "State of Direct War Threat" was declared. Although forces from the whole SFRY were included in this conflict, martial law was never announced, but after secession, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina declared martial law. On 23 March 1999, a "State of Direct War Threat" was declared in Yugoslavia, following the possibility of NATO air-strikes. The day after strikes began, martial law was declared, which lasted until June 1999, although strikes ended on 10 June, following Kumanovo Treaty. See also: DEFCON Gendarmerie Military rule (disambiguation) Stratocracy, a form of government headed by military generals. Police state, state governed through the power of the police force. Military junta, a government led by a committee of military leaders. Military dictatorship, a form of autocratic rule led by the military. Authoritarianism, a form of government with strong central power and limited freedoms. References: Further reading: Macomb, Alexander, Major General of the United States Army, The Practice of Courts Martial, (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1841) 154 pages. Macomb, Alexander, Major General of the United States Army, A Treatise on Martial Law, and Courts-Martial as Practiced in the United States. (Charleston: J. Hoff, 1809), republished (New York: Lawbook Exchange, 2007). ISBN 978-1-58477-709-0. Rehnquist, William H. (1998). All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime. New York: William Morrow & Co. ISBN 0-688-05142-1. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Edited by Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, Oxford University Press, 2004. Black's Law Dictionary: Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient and Modern. Henry Campbell Black. St. Paul: West Pub. Co., 1979. External links: 'Martial law' in the Encyclopædia Britannica Martial law in Thailand in 2005 Full text of the 1972 Martial Law in the Philippines NSPD-51 Emergency Rule of 3 November 2007 Pakistan Archived 16 September 2019 at the Wayback Machine

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Martial music

Types: March music: The notion of march music began to be borrowed from the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century. The Ottomans were believed to have introduced the first military bands in the thirteenth century, called mehter or Janissary bands. The music is characterized by an often shrill sound combining bass drums, horns (boru), bells, the triangle and cymbals (zil) and several other traditional instruments. The sound associated with the mehterân exercised an influence on European classical music, with such composers as Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and Ludwig van Beethoven all writing compositions inspired by or designed to imitate the Ottoman music. Marching songs: Marching songs, typically with patriotic and sometimes nostalgic lyrics, are often sung by soldiers as they march. The songs invariably feature a rhythm timed to the cadence of the march. There are many examples from the American Civil War, such as "Marching Song of the First Arkansas" and "John Brown's Body". "P'tit quinquin was popular during the Franco Prussian War of 1870. The Boer War generated numerous marching songs among which "Marching to Pretoria" is well known. "It's a Long Way to Tipperary" was a marching song of World War I that became a popular hit. One of the most enduring marching songs from that war is probably the "Colonel Bogey March", which was popular in World War II as "Hitler Has Only Got One Ball"; the tune found later fame as part of the soundtrack for Bridge on the River Kwai. The "Dadao March" was a patriotic song sung in China during the Second Sino-Japanese War. "White Army, Black Baron" was written as a combat hymn for the Red Army of Russia in 1920, while "Erika" was sung by the German army during World War II. Bugle calls: The bugle call is a short tune announcing scheduled and certain non-scheduled events on a military installation, battlefield, or ship. These short music pieces are played from an instrument called the bugle, it has been used by militaries as means of communication. This instrument can be heard from afar and in very noisy environments (during battle). It is a very effective way of giving orders and communicating. Although no longer required by armies for communicating, these music pieces are still played for tradition and during ceremonies. Well-known bugle calls include "Taps", "The Last Post", and "Reveille", and also El Degüello. Ruffles and flourishes: Ruffles and flourishes are fanfares for ceremonial music for distinguished people or groups. Ruffles are typically played on drums, and flourishes are played on bugles. Recorded music: The Vietnam War produced a hit song in 1966, "Ballad of the Green Berets" which has a martial rhythm. Curtis Mayfield's 1963 hit "Amen" also features a marching rhythm, as does the US Top 40 hit, "Burning Bridges" by The Mike Curb Congregation (1971). In Vietnam and in particular in the Second Gulf War and in Afghanistan, recorded music (often featuring rap music) has been used by some soldiers as they travel, prepare for and engage in battle. Performers such as Eminem have written songs with specific reference to the current wars including "Bagpipes From Baghdad", and Mark Knopfler, whose Brothers in Arms (song) was written during the Falklands War (1982). Also see: "Soundtrack to War". Instruments: Historically, trumpets, drums, cymbals, bagpipes, and other loud musical instruments were used for clear communication in the noise and confusion of a battlefield. They are easily carried while the instrumentalist is in motion, i.e., marching. Modern additions include the upright glockenspiel and several brass instruments including trombone and sousaphone, which are often used by military bands. Drum: Chinese troops used tàigǔ drums to motivate troops, to help set a marching pace, and to call out orders or announcements. For example, during a war between Qi and Lu in 684 BC, the effect of drums on soldier's morale is employed to change the result of a major battle. In the late fourteenth century the first timpani arose in Ottoman military ensembles known as Janissary bands. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries janissary bands began to influence European court musicians with new percussion instruments such as the timpani originally known as Kös, cymbals, and rattle. Fife-and-drum corps of Swiss mercenary foot soldiers also used drums. They used an early version of the snare drum carried over the player's right shoulder, suspended by a strap (typically played with one hand using traditional grip). Similarly, during the English Civil War rope-tension drums would be carried by junior officers as a means to relay commands from senior officers over the noise of battle. These were also hung over the shoulder of the drummer and typically played with two drum sticks. Different regiments and companies would have distinctive and unique drum beats which only they would recognize. Trumpet: The earliest trumpets were signaling instruments used for military or religious purposes and the modern bugle continues this signaling tradition. Officers in command gave orders via sound from the trumpet because it had a piercing tone and high volume, which meant it could be heard in the midst of combat. Cavalry trumpets had a different timbre, so their calls would not be mistaken for other sounds meant for the infantry. Bagpipe: An instrument with a piercing sound and graceful melody which is meant to be played outdoors, its main goal is to inspire men and women in the midst of conflict. It is also used in mourning the fallen and celebrating victory. Music was played in the build up to battle, but not during. Textual evidence for the use of Scottish bagpipes in battle dates from in 1396, when records of the Battle of the North Inch of Perth reference "warpipes" being carried into battle, though it is believed that bagpipes were originally intended for peaceful music. The Irish were also inspired by bagpipes, as witness in this 1586 account: "This sort of instrument is held among the Irish to be a whetstone for martial courage: for just as other soldiers are stirred by the sound of trumpets, so they are hotly stimulated to battle by the noise of this affair. In World War I German soldiers referred to Scottish pipers as Die Damen aus der Hölle [Ladies from Hell]. Also see: Great Irish Warpipes. Shawm: One of several woodwind instruments used in battle as early as the 12th century. This instrument rose in popularity during the Renaissance period and is believed to be a successor of an instrument called the zurna. It was mostly used as a military instrument. The overpowering noise coming from this instrument was used as a psychological weapon. The shawm found its way to Europe during the Crusades. See also: Battle cry Martial industrial March music Military band War song Royal Artillery Band British Grenadiers March Henry George Farmer Kneller Hall References: Further reading: Mark A. Snell and Bruce C. Kelley, editors, Bugle Resounding: Music and Musicians of the Civil War era, National Conference on Music of the Civil War Era, 2004. Lee Andresen, Battle Notes: Music of the Vietnam War, Savage Press, 2003. John H. Beck, Encyclopedia of Percussion, Routledge Press, 2007.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Materiel

Military: In a military context, the term materiel refers either to the specific needs (excluding manpower) of a force to complete a specific mission, or the general sense of the needs (excluding manpower) of a functioning army. An important category of materiel is commonly referred to as ordnance, especially concerning mounted guns (artillery) and the shells they consume. Along with fuel, and munitions in general, the steady supply of ordnance is an ongoing logistical challenge in active combat zones. Materiel management consists of continuing actions relating to planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, controlling, and evaluating the application of resources to ensure the effective and economical support of military forces. It includes provisioning, cataloging, requirements determination, acquisition, distribution, maintenance, and disposal. The terms "materiel management", "materiel control", "inventory control", "inventory management", and "supply management" are synonymous. Military materiel is often shipped to and used in severe climates without controlled warehouses or fixed material handling equipment. Packaging and labeling often need to meet stringent technical specifications to help ensure proper delivery and final use. Some military procurement allows for commercial packaging rather than the more stringent military grades. Commercial: Materiel in the commercial distribution context refers to the products of the business, as distinct from those involved in operating the business itself. See also: Anti-materiel rifle Inventory Matériel (French Army) Military acquisition Military logistics Military supply chain management Supply chain United States Army Materiel Command Air Force Materiel Command United States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command References: External links: The dictionary definition of materiel at Wiktionary

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Mechanised infantry

History: As early as 1915 the British instigated a tracked vehicle that could carry 50 equipped troops under armour but the project got no further than trials before cancellation. Some of the first mechanized infantry were German assault teams mounted on A7V tanks during World War I. The vehicles were extra-large to let them carry sizeable assault teams and would regularly carry infantry on board in addition to their already large crews that were trained as stormtroopers. All machine-gun-armed A7V tanks carried two small flamethrowers for their dismounts to use. A7V tank would often carry a second officer to lead the assault team. During the Battle of St. Quentin in late March 1918, A7Vs were accompanied by twenty stormtroopers from Rohr Assault Battalion, but it is unspecified if they were acting as dismounts or were accompanying the tanks on foot. During the battle, tank crews were reported to have dismounted and attacked enemy positions with grenades and flamethrowers on numerous occasions. Another example of the use of such a method of fighting is the capture of Villers-Bretonneux, in which A7Vs would suppress the defenders with machine gun fire and assault teams would dismount and attack them with grenades. The British heavy tank design was given an extended hull to cross wide German trenches. This Mark V** had space for fourteen troops. The Mark IX tank based on the Mark V was designed solely for carrying troops with space for 30 but the war ended before the order was complete and they could be used. Towards the end of World War I, all the armies involved were faced with the problem of maintaining the momentum of an attack. Tanks, artillery, or infiltration tactics could all be used to break through an enemy defense, but almost all offensives launched in 1918 ground to a halt after a few days. The following infantry quickly became exhausted, and artillery, supplies and fresh formations could not be brought forward over the battlefields quickly enough to maintain the pressure on the regrouping enemy forces. It was widely acknowledged that cavalry was too vulnerable to be used on most European battlefields, but many armies continued to deploy them. Motorized infantry could maintain rapid movement, but their trucks required either a good road network or firm open terrain, such as desert. They were unable to traverse a battlefield obstructed by craters, barbed wire, and trenches. Tracked or all-wheel drive vehicles were to be the solution. Following the war, development of mechanized forces was largely theoretical for some time, but many nations began rearming in the 1930s. The British Army had established an Experimental Mechanized Force in 1927, but it failed to pursue that line because of budget constraints and the prior need to garrison the frontiers of the British Empire. Although some proponents of mobile warfare, such as J. F. C. Fuller, advocated building "tank fleets", other, such as Heinz Guderian in Germany, Adna R. Chaffee Jr. in the United States, and Mikhail Tukhachevsky in the Soviet Union, recognized that tank units required close support from infantry and other arms and that such supporting arms needed to maintain the same pace as the tanks. As the Germans rearmed in the 1930s, they equipped some infantry units in their new Panzer divisions with the half-track Sd.Kfz. 251, which could keep up with tanks on most terrain. The French Army also created "light mechanized" (légère mécanisée) divisions in which some of the infantry units possessed small tracked carriers. Together with the motorization of the other infantry and support units, this gave both armies highly mobile combined-arms formations. The German doctrine was to use them to exploit breakthroughs in Blitzkrieg offensives, whereas the French envisaged them being used to shift reserves rapidly in a defensive battle. World War II: As World War II progressed, most major armies integrated tanks or assault guns with mechanized infantry, as well as other supporting arms, such as artillery and combat engineers, as combined arms units. Allied armored formations included a mechanized infantry element for combined arms teamwork. For example, US armored divisions had a balance of three battalions each of tanks, armored infantry, and self-propelled artillery. The US armored infantry was fully equipped with M2 and M3 halftracks. In the British and Commonwealth armies, "Type A armoured brigades," intended for independent operations or to form part of armored divisions, had a "motor infantry" battalion mounted in Universal Carriers or later in lend-lease halftracks. "Type B" brigades lacked a motor infantry component and were subordinated to infantry formations. The Canadian Army and, subsequently the British Army, used expedients such as the Kangaroo APC, usually for specific operations rather than to create permanent mechanized infantry formations. The first such operation was Operation Totalize in the Battle of Normandy, which failed to achieve its ultimate objectives but showed that mechanized infantry could incur far fewer casualties than dismounted troops in set-piece operations. The German Army, having introduced mechanized infantry in its Panzer divisions, later named them Panzergrenadier units. In the middle of the war, it created entire mechanized infantry divisions and named Panzergrenadier divisions. Because the German economy could not produce adequate numbers of its half-track APC, barely a quarter or a third of the infantry in Panzer or Panzergrenadier divisions were mechanized, except in a few favored formations. The rest were moved by truck. However, most German reconnaissance units in such formations were also primarily mechanized infantry and could undertake infantry missions when it was needed. The Allies generally used jeeps, armored cars, or light tanks for reconnaissance. The Red Army began the war while still in the process of reorganizing its armored and mechanized formations, most of which were destroyed during the first months of the German Invasion of the Soviet Union. About a year later, the Soviets recreated division-sized mechanized infantry units, termed mechanized corps, usually with one tank brigade and three mechanized infantry brigades, with motorized supporting arms. They were generally used in the exploitation phase of offensives, as part of the prewar Soviet concept of deep operations. The Soviet Army also created several cavalry mechanized groups in which tanks, mechanized infantry and horsed cavalry were mixed. They were also used in the exploitation and pursuit phases of offensives. Red Army mechanized infantry were generally carried on tanks or trucks, with only a few dedicated lend-lease half-track APCs. The New Zealand Army ultimately fielded a division of a roughly similar composition to a Soviet mechanized corps, which fought in the Italian Campaign, but it had little scope for mobile operations until near the end of the war. The Romanian Army fielded a mixed assortment of vehicles. These amounted to 126 French-designed Renault UE Chenillettes which were licence-built locally, 34 captured and refurbished Soviet armored tractors, 27 German-made armored half-tracks of the Sd.Kfz. 250 and Sd.Kfz. 251 types, over 200 Czechoslovak Tatra, Praga and Skoda trucks (the Tatra trucks were a model which was specifically built for the Romanian Army) as well as 300 German Horch 901 4x4 field cars. Sd.Kfz. 8 and Sd.Kfz. 9 half-tracks were also acquired, as well as nine vehicles of the Sd.Kfz. 10 type and 100 RSO/01 fully tracked tractors. The Romanians also produced five prototypes of an indigenous artillery tractor. Cold War: On July 9, 1945, Decree of the State Defence Committee No. GKO-9488ss, "On the Resupply of Armored and Mechanized Forces of the Red Army" was issued. It ordered the creation of mechanised divisions from many rifle divisions, included in the Armored and Mechanised Troops. In some cases, cavalry divisions and airborne divisions also became mechanised divisions The Soviet motorised rifle troops officially appeared in accordance with the Directive of the Minister of Defense of the USSR No. org. / 3/62540 of February 27, 1957. This directive ordered part of the mechanized divisions and all rifle units and formations reorganized into 'motorised rifle' in the period 1957 to 1964. Creation of the motorised rifle troops was facilitated by large-scale mechanisation of the whole Soviet Ground Forces. This became possible due to the increase in the production of armored personnel carriers, self-propelled guns and so on. For example, in the period before the formation and in the initial period of the formation of the motorized rifle troops: BTR-40 – in the period from 1950 to 1960s, 8,500 units were produced BTR-50 — 1954 to 1970s – 6,500 pieces BTR-152 — 1947 to 1962 – 12,421 pieces BRDM-1 — 1957 to 1966 – 10,000 units One or two motorised rifle regiments were also present in each tank division, and many tank regiments included one motorised rifle battalion. After 1945, the Soviet Armed Forces and NATO further developed the equipment and doctrine for mechanized infantry. With the exception of airborne formations, the Red Army mechanized all its infantry formations.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Mechanised infantry

For example, in the period before the formation and in the initial period of the formation of the motorized rifle troops: BTR-40 – in the period from 1950 to 1960s, 8,500 units were produced BTR-50 — 1954 to 1970s – 6,500 pieces BTR-152 — 1947 to 1962 – 12,421 pieces BRDM-1 — 1957 to 1966 – 10,000 units One or two motorised rifle regiments were also present in each tank division, and many tank regiments included one motorised rifle battalion. After 1945, the Soviet Armed Forces and NATO further developed the equipment and doctrine for mechanized infantry. With the exception of airborne formations, the Red Army mechanized all its infantry formations. Initially, wheeled APCs, like the BTR-152, were used, some of which lacked overhead protection and were therefore vulnerable to artillery fire. It still gave the Soviet Army greater strategic flexibility because of the large land area and the long borders of the Soviet Union and its allies in the Warsaw Pact. Armored vehicles meant infantry were capable of overcoming water barriers and having means of protection against Weapons of Mass Destruction. The US Army established the basic configuration of the tracked APC with the M75 and M59 before it adopted the lighter M113, which could be carried by Lockheed C-130 Hercules and other transport aircraft. The vehicle gave infantry the same mobility as tanks but with much less effective armor protection (it still had nuclear, biological, and chemical protection). In the Vietnam War, the M113 was often fitted with extra armament and used as an ad hoc infantry fighting vehicle. Early operations by the Army of the Republic of Vietnam using the vehicle showed that troops were far more effective while they were mounted in the vehicles than when they dismounted. American doctrine subsequently emphasized mounted tactics. The Americans ultimately deployed a mechanized brigade and ten mechanized battalions to Vietnam. The motorized rifle troops of the Soviet Armed Forces were the world's first infantry units that adopted a new class of combat vehicles in 1966 – Infantry fighting vehicles. BMP-1 began entering service in 1966. In the Federal Republic of Germany, an approximate analogue, the Marder, appeared only in 1970. Unlike the APC, which was intended merely to transport the infantry from place to place under armor, the IFV had heavy firepower that could support infantry. The Infantry fighting vehicle concept was subsequently copied by almost all countries of the world. The introduction of the BMP-1 prompted the development of similar vehicles in Western armies, such as the West German Marder and American M2 Bradley. Many IFVs were also equipped with firing ports from which their infantry could fire their weapons from inside, but they were generally not successful and have been dropped from modern IFVs. Soviet organization led to different tactics between the "light" and the "heavy" varieties of mechanized infantry. In the Soviet Army, a first-line "motor rifle" division from the 1970s onward usually had two regiments equipped with wheeled BTR-60 APCs and one with the tracked BMP-1 IFV. The "light" regiments were intended to make dismounted attacks on the division's flanks, while the BMP-equipped "heavy" regiment remained mounted and supported the division's tank regiment on the main axis of advance. Both types of infantry regiment still were officially titled "motor rifle" units. A line of development in the Soviet Armed Forces from the 1980s was the provision of specialized IFVs for use by the Russian Airborne Troops. The first of them was the BMD-1, which had the same firepower as the BMP-1 but could be carried in or even parachuted from the standard Soviet transport aircraft. That made airborne formations into mechanized infantry at the cost of reducing their "bayonet" strength, as the BMD could carry only three or at most four paratroopers in addition to its three-man crew. They were used in that role in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Present day: At present, almost all infantry units from industrialized nations are provided with some type of motor transport. Infantry units equipped with IFVs rather than lighter vehicles are commonly designated as "heavy", indicating more combat power but also more costly long-range transportation requirements. In Operation Desert Shield, during the buildup phase of the First Gulf War, the U.S. Army was concerned about the lack of mobility, protection and firepower offered by existing rapid deployment (i.e., airborne) formations; and also about the slowness of deploying regular armored units. The experience led the U.S. Army to form combat brigades based on the Stryker wheeled IFV. In the British Army, "heavy" units equipped with the Warrior IFV are described as "armoured infantry", and units with the Bulldog APC as "mechanised infantry". This convention is becoming widespread; for example the French Army has "motorisées" units equipped with the wheeled VAB and "mécanisées" units with the tracked AMX-10P. The transport and other logistic requirements have led many armies to adopt wheeled APCs when their existing stocks of tracked APCs require replacement. An example is the Canadian Army, which has used the LAV III wheeled IFV in fighting in Afghanistan. The Italian, Spanish and Swedish armies are adopting (and exporting) new indigenous-produced tracked IFVs. The Swedish CV90 IFV in particular has been adopted by several armies. A recent trend seen in the Israel Defense Forces and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is the development and introduction of exceptionally well-armored APCs (HAPC), such as the IDF Achzarit, that are converted from obsolete main battle tanks (such as the Soviet T-55). Such vehicles are usually expedients, and lack of space prevents the armament of an IFV being carried in addition to an infantry section or squad. In the Russian Army, such vehicles were introduced for fighting in urban areas, where the risk from short range infantry anti-tank weapons, such as the RPG-7, is highest, after Russian tank and motor infantry units suffered heavy losses fighting Chechen troops in Grozny during the First Chechen War in 1995. Many APCs and IFVs currently under development are intended for rapid deployment by aircraft. New technologies that promise reduction in weight, such as electric drive, may be incorporated. However, facing a similar threat in post-invasion Iraq to that which prompted the Russians to convert tanks to APCs, the occupying armies have found it necessary to apply extra armor to existing APCs and IFVs, which adds to the overall size and weight. Some of the latest designs (such as the German Puma) are intended to allow a light, basic model vehicle, which is air-transportable, to be fitted in the field with additional protection, thereby ensuring both strategic flexibility and survivability. Medium mechanized forces: In the late Cold War and early 21st century, various countries developed medium infantry forces armed with armored vehicles, which typically consisted of wheeled armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, and assault guns. Medium mechanized forces are characterized by having more strategic air and road mobility than heavier, tank-based armored forces while offering better armor protection for the formation than the lighter motorized infantry formation, in which vehicles were considered "battle taxis" due to poor protection. The earliest experiment was the short-lived Soviet Light Motor Rifle Division in 1987, which consisted of wheeled BTR platforms for its primary armament. In the 1990s, the United States explored Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) formation and doctrines, which was a medium mechanized infantry formation with all-wheeled platforms centered around Stryker armored personnel carrier. In the early 21st century, China reformed its ground forces with the concept called Medium Combined Arms Brigade (CA-BDE), armed with Type 08 universal wheeled platform. A similar trend of adopting the medium mechanized forces was observed in European countries, including the Italian, Polish, and French armed forces. Combined arms operations: It is generally accepted that single weapons system types are much less effective without the support of the full combined arms team; the pre-World War II notion of "tank fleets" has proven to be as unsound as the World War I idea of unsupported infantry attacks. Though many nations' armored formations included an organic mechanized infantry component at the start of World War II, the proportion of mechanized infantry in such combined arms formations was increased by most armies as the war progressed. The lesson was re-learned, first by the Pakistani Army in the 1965 war with India, where the nation fielded two different types of armored divisions: one which was almost exclusively armor (the 1st), while another was more balanced (the 6th). The latter division showed itself to be far more combat-capable than the former. Having achieved spectacular successes in the offensive with tank-heavy formations during the Six-Day War, the Israel Defense Forces found in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 that a doctrine that relied primarily on tanks and aircraft had proven inadequate. As a makeshift remedy, paratroopers were provided with motorized transport and used as mechanized infantry in coordination with the armor. See also: Armoured warfare Notes: Sources: Dunstan, Simon. Vietnam Tracks: Armor In Battle 1945–1975. 1982 edition, Osprey Publishing; ISBN 0-89141-171-2. Starry, Donn A., General.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Mechanised infantry

The latter division showed itself to be far more combat-capable than the former. Having achieved spectacular successes in the offensive with tank-heavy formations during the Six-Day War, the Israel Defense Forces found in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 that a doctrine that relied primarily on tanks and aircraft had proven inadequate. As a makeshift remedy, paratroopers were provided with motorized transport and used as mechanized infantry in coordination with the armor. See also: Armoured warfare Notes: Sources: Dunstan, Simon. Vietnam Tracks: Armor In Battle 1945–1975. 1982 edition, Osprey Publishing; ISBN 0-89141-171-2. Starry, Donn A., General. Armored Combat in Vietnam. 1980, Arno Press Inc. ISBN 0-672-52673-5.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Medical corps

List of medical corps: The following organizations are examples of medical corps: In the British Armed Forces and Commonwealth of Nations: Royal Army Medical Corps, a specialist corps of the Army Medical Services that provides medical care to British Army personnel Royal Australian Army Medical Corps, the branch of the Australian Army responsible for providing medical care to Army personnel Royal New Zealand Army Medical Corps, a corps of the New Zealand Army that is responsible for medical care to Army personnel Sri Lanka Army Medical Corps, a corps of the Sri Lanka Army that is responsible for medical care to Army personnel In the United States military: Medical Corps (United States Army), a corps that consists of all physicians of the U.S. Army Medical Department Medical Corps (United States Navy), a staff corps of the United States Navy consisting of doctors in a variety of specialties United States Air Force Medical Service, a corps that consists of all physicians of the U.S. Air Force Medical Service In the Indian Armed Forces AFMS(Armed Forces Medical Services), known as Army Medical Corps that is responsible for medical care to Indian Armed Forces(Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard) personnel. It is tri-service organization. It provides medical support to the Armed Forces during war as well as comprehensive health care to all service personnel, ex-servicemen and their dependents during peace. Army Medical Corps provides medical aid during natural calamities both at national and international levels. AFMS has a common pool which allows officers to migrate from one service to another depending on the requirement. In the French Armed Forces: Defence Health Service In the Irish Defence Forces: Medical Corps (Ireland) In the Israel Defense Forces: Medical Corps (Israel) In the Myanmar Armed Forces: Myanmar Army Medical Corps In the Bangladesh Armed Forces: Army Medical Corps (Bangladesh) In the Polish Armed Forces: Military Health Service, part of the Polish Armed Forces providing a comprehensive full-scale military health service to them In the Singapore Armed Forces: SAF Medical Corps, a tri-service organization part of the Singapore Armed Forces that provides medical support for the Singapore Army, Navy and Air Force. In the South African National Defence Force: South African Military Health Service, a distinct Arm of Service (as opposed to Army, Navy or Air Force), providing a comprehensive full-scale military health service to the South African National Defence Force In the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation: Main Military Medical Directorate In the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr): Zentraler Sanitätsdienst Dental corps: A dental corps is a specialist military unit, generally including dentists and dedicated to maintaining the dental health of service personnel. Dental corps are therefore a kind of medical corps, and are typically either within the medical corps of their military organization, or closely associated with it. List of dental corps: Royal Army Dental Corps, a specialist corps of the British Army Medical Services Royal Australian Army Dental Corps Royal Canadian Dental Corps Royal New Zealand Army Dental Corps United States Army Dental Corps, a special branch of the Army Medical Department (United States) United States Navy Dental Corps Army Dental Corps (India) Army Dental Corps (Pakistan) Army Dental Corps (Bangladesh) See also: Medical Reserve Corps, a civilian program in the United States International Medical Corps (IMC), a global humanitarian nonprofit organization Medical Cadet Corps, a Seventh-day Adventist organization SS Medical Corps, of the SS in the Nazi Germany

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Medieval fortification

Fortification types: Archer towers: Towers of medieval castles were usually made of stone, wood or a combination of both (with a stone base supporting a wooden loft). Often toward the later part of the era they included battlements and arrow loops. Arrow loops were vertical slits in the wall through which archers inside shot arrows at the attackers, but made it extremely difficult for attackers to get many arrows back through at the defenders. Siege Defenses: Sieges were common during the Middle Ages and because of this many cities fortified their walls and castles to defend against the use of siege engines by their attackers1. Many cities utilized catapults that would hurl stones and other missiles at enemy siege engines and soldiers. The most commonly used catapult for defense was the trebuchet, a torsion powered catapult that dominated the Middle Ages both offensively and defensively. The trebuchet was known for its considerable force but required a longer loading time compared to other siege engines, sometimes taking up to an hour, which lead to some cities using catapults such as the mangonel and onager instead, which could put projectiles downrange much faster than the trebuchet. The trebuchet’s destructive force caused engineers to thicken walls, round out towers, and to redesign fortifications so that they could employ trebuchets for defense. The Ayyubids between 1196 and 1218 built towers mounted with massive trebuchets, which hypothetically would use their height advantage to take out opposing siege engines. Ballistas were another type of catapult utilized as a defensive weapon, however they were not often used. This is because their missiles sometimes lacked the force to dismantle enemy siege engines and their immobility confined them to the top of a city's towers were they could easily be taken out by enemy catapults, including offensive ballistas which were usually employed for the very reason of dismantling defenses on the top of towers and keeping defenders off of a wall's battlements. After the invention of cannons near the beginning of 12th century CE, many torsion powered catapults became largely obsolete and cannons became commonplace medieval siege engines by the 15th century. While mostly used for offensive purposes, the first recorded use of a cannon in Europe was to defend the city of Algeciras during the siege of 1343-44. However slow to load, cannons proved to be devastating weapons that could level a city's walls or destroy siege engines with only a single projectile. City walls: An exact nature of the walls of a medieval town or city would depend on the resources available for building them, the nature of the terrain, and the perceived threat. In northern Europe, early in the period, walls were likely to have been constructed of wood and proofed against small forces. Especially where stone was readily available for building, the wood will have been replaced by stone to a higher or lower standard of security. This would have been the pattern of events in the Five Boroughs of the Danelaw in England. In many cases, the wall would have had an internal and an external pomoerium. This was a strip of clear ground immediately adjacent the wall. The word is from the late medieval, derived from the classical Latin post murum ("behind the wall"). An external pomoerium, stripped of bushes and building, gave defenders a clear view of what was happening outside and an unobstructed field of shot. An internal pomoerium gave ready access to the rear of the curtain wall to facilitate movement of the garrison to a point of need. By the end of the sixteenth century, the word had developed further in common use, into pomery. Also by that time, the medieval walls were no longer secure against a serious threat from an army, as they were not designed to be strong enough to resist cannon fire. They were sometimes rebuilt, as at Berwick on Tweed, or retained for use against thieves and other threats of a lower order. Very elaborate and complex schemes for town defenses were developed in the Netherlands and France, but these belong mainly to the post-medieval periods. By 1600, the medieval wall is likely to have been seen more as a platform for displaying hangings and the pomery as a gathering ground for spectators, or as a source of building stone and a site for its use, respectively. However, a few, such as those of Carcassonne and Dubrovnik, survived fairly well and have been restored to a nearly complete state. Medieval walls that were no longer adequate for defending were succeeded by the star fort. After the invention of the explosive shell, star forts became obsolete as well. Harbors: Harbors or some sort of water access were often essential to the construction of medieval fortifications. It was a direct route for trading and fortification. Having direct access to a body of water provided a route for resupply in times of war, an additional method of transportation in times of peace, and potential drinking water for a besieged castle or fortification. The concept of rivers or harbors coming directly up to the walls of fortifications was especially used by the English as they constructed castles throughout Wales. There is evidence that harbors were fortified, with wooden structures in the water creating a semi-circle around the harbor, or jetties, as seen in an artist's reconstruction of Hedeby, in Denmark, with an opening for ships to access the land. Usually, these wooden structures would have small bases at either end, creating a 'watch' and defense platform. Churches and monasteries: Religion was a central part of the lives of medieval soldiers, and churches, chapels, monasteries, and other buildings of religious function were often included within the walls of any fortification, be it temporary or permanent. A place to conduct religious services was usually essential to the morale of the soldiers. Mottes and baileys: Motte-and-bailey was the prevalent form of castle during 11th and 12th centuries. A courtyard (called a bailey) was protected by a ditch and a palisade (strong timber fence). Often the entrance was protected by a lifting bridge, a drawbridge or a timber gate tower. Inside the bailey were stables, workshops, and a chapel. The motte was the final refuge in this type of castle. It was a raised earth mound, and varied considerably, with these mounds being 3 metres to 30 metres in height (10 feet to 100 feet), and from 30 to 90 metres (98 to 295 ft) in diameter. There was a tower on top of the motte. In most cases, the tower was made of timber, though some were also made of stones. Stone towers were found in natural mounds, as artificial ones were not strong enough to support stone towers. Larger mottes had towers with many rooms, including the great hall. Smaller ones had only a watch tower. Construction: Construction could sometimes take decades. The string of Welsh castles Edward I of England had built were an exception in that he focused much of the resources of his kingdom on their speedy construction. In addition to paid workers, forced levies of labourers put thousands of men on each site and shortened construction to a few years. Location: Nature could provide very effective defenses for the castle. For this reason many castles were built on larger hills, cliffs, close to rivers, lakes or even caves. Materials: Materials that were used in the building of castles varied through history. Wood was used for most castles until 1066. They were cheap and were quick to construct. The reason wood fell into disuse as a material is that it is quite flammable. Soon stone became more popular. Stone castles took years to construct depending on the overall size of the castle. Stone was stronger and of course much more expensive than wood. Most stone had to be quarried miles away, and then brought to the building site. But with the invention of the cannon and gunpowder, castles soon lost their power. Costs: Costs for the walls depended on the material used. Wood would cost very little and was quick to build, but was weak. Stone was strong but very expensive and time-consuming to construct. Manpower: Manpower in the medieval era in Europe consisted mainly of serfs. Walls: The height of walls varied widely by castle, but were often 2.5–6 m (8.2–19.7 ft) thick. They were usually topped with crenellation or parapets that offered protection to defenders. Some also featured machicolations (from the French machicoulis, approximately "neck-crusher") which consisted of openings between a wall and a parapet, formed by corbelling out the latter, allowing defenders to throw stones, boiling water, and so forth, upon assailants below. Some castles featured additional inner walls, as additional fortifications from which to mount a defense if outer walls were breached. Gates: Any entrance through a wall, being an opening, forms an obvious weak point. To be practical, the entryway would have to accommodate supplies being brought through, yet difficult for attackers to breach. For example, passage over ditches or moats would have to be withdrawn to deny attackers. The use of multiple walls or ditches around an entrance would also make it difficult for defenders to use the entrance practically, necessitating better methods of control. Gates came in many forms, from the simple stone buttress and timber blocks, to the massive and imposing stone archways and thick wooden doors most associated with medieval citadels.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Medieval fortification

Some castles featured additional inner walls, as additional fortifications from which to mount a defense if outer walls were breached. Gates: Any entrance through a wall, being an opening, forms an obvious weak point. To be practical, the entryway would have to accommodate supplies being brought through, yet difficult for attackers to breach. For example, passage over ditches or moats would have to be withdrawn to deny attackers. The use of multiple walls or ditches around an entrance would also make it difficult for defenders to use the entrance practically, necessitating better methods of control. Gates came in many forms, from the simple stone buttress and timber blocks, to the massive and imposing stone archways and thick wooden doors most associated with medieval citadels. Killing fields: A killing field was an area between the main wall and a secondary wall, so when the first wall was breached the attackers would run into the killing field to be confronted by another wall from which soldiers bombarded them. Soldiers would be positioned atop the second wall and armed with any variety of weapons, ranging from bows to crossbows to simple rocks. Moats: A moat was a common addition to medieval fortifications, and the principal purpose was to simply increase the effective height of the walls and to prevent digging under the walls. In many instances, natural water paths were used as moats, and often extended through ditches to surround as much of the fortification as possible. Provided this was not so unnaturally contrived as to allow an attacker to drain the system, it served two defensive purposes. It made approaching the curtain wall of the castle more difficult and the undermining of the wall virtually impossible. To position a castle on a small island was very favorable from a defensive point of view, although it made deliveries of supplies and building materials more cumbersome and expensive. Keeps: A keep is a strong central tower which normally forms the heart of a castle. Often the keep is the most defended area of a castle, and as such may form the main habitation area for a noble or lord, or contain important stores such as the armoury or the main well. Stairs: Stairs were also constructed to contain trick or stumble steps. These were steps that had different rise height or tread depth from the rest and would cause anyone running up the stairs to stumble or fall, so slowing down the attackers' progress. Doors: A typical exterior wooden door might be made out of two or more layers of oak planks. The grain of the wood would run vertically on the front layer and horizontally on the back, like a simple form of plywood. The two layers would be held together by iron studs, and the structure might be strengthened and stiffened with iron bands. The studs themselves were pointed on the front so that attackers would damage their weapons (swords, axes, etc.) while trying to break through. Transition to modern fortification: From the mid-15th century onwards, the power of cannons grew and medieval walls became obsolete as they were too thin to offer any realistic protection against prolonged bombardment. As a consequence of this, medieval walls were often upgraded with the addition of artillery platforms or bastions, and battlements were replaced by thick parapets with embrasures. In many cases, the medieval walls were dismantled and their stonework, which was still valuable as construction material, was reused in the construction of the new fortifications. The resulting space is often seen in old city centers of Europe even to this day, as broader streets often outline where the old wall once stood (evident for example in Prague and Florence, Italy). The transition between medieval and early modern fortification can be seen in the fortifications of Rhodes in Greece and the fortifications of Famagusta in Cyprus. Defensive obstacles: Just as modern military engineers enhance field fortifications with obstacles such as barbed wire, medieval engineers used a number of obstacle types including abatis, caltrops, cheval de frise, and trou de loup. Siegecraft: Trebuchet Cannon Mangonel Ballista Catapult See also: Medieval warfare Siege engine Guédelon Castle - from 1996 to 2020 they will build a 13th-century castle exclusively using methods of that time. A lot of information regarding castrametation and castellology had already surfaced thanks to this project. Star fort replaced medieval fortifications. Encastellation Rocca di Manerba del Garda Castle Site of Montbazon Notes: These defenses were not only used as counter-measures against siege engines and were effective defenses against many other forms of attack including the dispatchment of attackers unshielded by siege engines. References: Bibliography: Toy, Sidney. (1985) Castles: Their Construction and History. ISBN 978-0-486-24898-1.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Medieval warfare

Organization: The medieval knight was usually a mounted and armoured soldier, often connected with nobility or royalty, although (especially in north-eastern Europe) knights could also come from the lower classes, and could even be enslaved persons. The cost of their armour, horses, and weapons was great; this, among other things, helped gradually transform the knight, at least in western Europe, into a distinct social class separate from other warriors. During the crusades, holy orders of Knights fought in the Holy Land (see Knights Templar, the Hospitallers, etc.). The light cavalry consisted usually of lighter armed and armoured men, who could have lances, javelins or missile weapons, such as bows or crossbows. In much of the Middle Ages, light cavalry usually consisted of wealthy commoners. Later in the Middle Ages, light cavalry would also include sergeants who were men who had trained as knights but could not afford the costs associated with the title. Light cavalry was used as scouts, skirmishers or outflankers. Many countries developed their styles of light cavalries, such as Hungarian mounted archers, Spanish jinetes, Italian and German mounted crossbowmen and English currours. The infantry was recruited and trained in a wide variety of manners in different regions of Europe all through the Middle Ages, and probably always formed the most numerous part of a medieval field army. Many infantrymen in prolonged wars would be mercenaries. Most armies contained significant numbers of spearmen, archers and other unmounted soldiers. Recruiting: In the earliest Middle Ages, it was the obligation of every noble to respond to the call to battle with his equipment, archers, and infantry. This decentralized system was necessary due to the social order of the time but could lead to motley forces with variable training, equipment and abilities. The more resources the noble had access to, the better his troops would typically be. Typically the feudal armies consisted of a core of highly skilled knights and their household troops, mercenaries hired for the time of the campaign and feudal levies fulfilling their feudal obligations, who usually were little more than rabble. They could, however, be efficient in disadvantageous terrain. Towns and cities could also field militias. As central governments grew in power, a return to the citizen and mercenary armies of the classical period also began, as central levies of the peasantry began to be the central recruiting tool. It was estimated that the best infantrymen came from the younger sons of free land-owning yeomen, such as the English archers and Swiss pikemen. England was one of the most centralized states in the Late Middle Ages, and the armies that fought the Hundred Years' War were mostly paid professionals. In theory, every Englishman had an obligation to serve for forty days. Forty days was not long enough for a campaign, especially one on the continent. Thus the scutage was introduced, whereby most Englishmen paid to escape their service and this money was used to create a permanent army. However, almost all high medieval armies in Europe were composed of a great deal of paid core troops, and there was a large mercenary market in Europe from at least the early 12th century. As the Middle Ages progressed in Italy, Italian cities began to rely mostly on mercenaries to do their fighting rather than the militias that had dominated the early and high medieval period in this region. These would be groups of career soldiers who would be paid a set rate. Mercenaries tended to be effective soldiers, especially in combination with standing forces, but in Italy, they came to dominate the armies of the city-states. This made them problematic; while at war they were considerably more reliable than a standing army, at peacetime they proved a risk to the state itself like the Praetorian Guard had once been. Mercenary-on-mercenary warfare in Italy led to relatively bloodless campaigns which relied as much on manoeuvre as on battles, since the condottieri recognized it was more efficient to attack the enemy's ability to wage war rather than his battle forces, discovering the concept of indirect warfare 500 years before Sir Basil Liddell Hart, and attempting to attack the enemy supply lines, his economy and his ability to wage war rather than risking an open battle, and manoeuvre him into a position where risking a battle would have been suicidal. Machiavelli understood this indirect approach as cowardice. Fortifications: In Europe, breakdowns in centralized power led to the rise of several groups that turned to large-scale pillage as a source of income. Most notably the Vikings, Arabs, Mongols, Huns, Cumans, Tartars, and Magyars raided significantly. As these groups were generally small and needed to move quickly, building fortifications was a good way to provide refuge and protection for the people and the wealth in the region. These fortifications evolved throughout the Middle Ages, the most important form being the castle, a structure which has become almost synonymous with the Medieval era in the popular eye. The castle served as a protected place for the local elites. Inside a castle they were protected from bands of raiders and could send mounted warriors to drive the enemy from the area, or to disrupt the efforts of larger armies to supply themselves in the region by gaining local superiority over foraging parties that would be impossible against the whole enemy host. Fortifications were a very important part of warfare because they provided safety to the lord, his family, and his servants. They provided refuge from armies too large to face in open battle. The ability of the heavy cavalry to dominate a battle on an open field was useless against fortifications. Building siege engines was a time-consuming process, and could seldom be effectively done without preparations before the campaign. Many sieges could take months, if not years, to weaken or demoralize the defenders sufficiently. Fortifications were an excellent means of ensuring that the elite could not be easily dislodged from their lands – as Count Baldwin of Hainaut commented in 1184 on seeing enemy troops ravage his lands from the safety of his castle, "they can't take the land with them". Siege warfare: In the Medieval period besieging armies used a wide variety of siege engines including: scaling ladders; battering rams; siege towers and various types of catapults such as the mangonel, onager, ballista, and trebuchet. Siege techniques also included mining in which tunnels were dug under a section of the wall and then rapidly collapsed to destabilize the wall's foundation. Another technique was to bore into the enemy walls, however, this was not nearly as effective as other methods due to the thickness of castle walls. Advances in the prosecution of sieges encouraged the development of a variety of defensive counter-measures. In particular, Medieval fortifications became progressively stronger – for example, the advent of the concentric castle from the period of the Crusades – and more dangerous to attackers – witness the increasing use of machicolations, as well the preparation of hot or incendiary substances. Arrow slits, concealed doors for sallies, and deep water wells were also integral to resisting siege at this time. Designers of castles paid particular attention to defending entrances, protecting gates with drawbridges, portcullises and barbicans. Wet animal skins were often draped over gates to repel fire. Moats and other water defences, whether natural or augmented, were also vital to defenders. In the Middle Ages, virtually all large cities had city walls – Dubrovnik in Dalmatia is a well-preserved example – and more important cities had citadels, forts or castles. Great effort was expended to ensure a good water supply inside the city in case of siege. In some cases, long tunnels were constructed to carry water into the city. In other cases, such as the Ottoman siege of Shkodra, Venetian engineers had designed and installed cisterns that were fed by rain water channeled by a system of conduits in the walls and buildings. Complex systems of tunnels were used for storage and communications in medieval cities like Tábor in Bohemia. Against these would be matched the mining skills of teams of trained sappers, who were sometimes employed by besieging armies. Until the invention of gunpowder-based weapons (and the resulting higher-velocity projectiles), the balance of power and logistics favoured the defender. With the invention of gunpowder, the traditional methods of defence became less and less effective against a determined siege. Relics: The practice of carrying relics into battle is a feature that distinguishes medieval warfare from its predecessors or early modern warfare and possibly inspired by biblical references. The presence of relics was believed to be an important source of supernatural power that served both as a spiritual weapon and a form of defence; the relics of martyrs were considered by Saint John Chrysostom much more powerful than "walls, trenches, weapons and hosts of soldiers" In Italy, the carroccio or carro della guerra, the "war wagon", was an elaboration of this practice that developed during the 13th century. The carro della guerra of Milan was described in detail in 1288 by Bonvesin de la Riva in his book on the "Marvels of Milan". Wrapped in scarlet cloth and drawn by three yoke of oxen that were caparisoned in white with the red cross of Saint Ambrose, the city's patron, it carried a crucifix so massive it took four men to step it in place, like a ship's mast. Naval warfare: The waters surrounding Europe can be grouped into two types which affected the design of craft that traveled and therefore the warfare.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Medieval warfare

The carro della guerra of Milan was described in detail in 1288 by Bonvesin de la Riva in his book on the "Marvels of Milan". Wrapped in scarlet cloth and drawn by three yoke of oxen that were caparisoned in white with the red cross of Saint Ambrose, the city's patron, it carried a crucifix so massive it took four men to step it in place, like a ship's mast. Naval warfare: The waters surrounding Europe can be grouped into two types which affected the design of craft that traveled and therefore the warfare. The Mediterranean and Black Seas were free of large tides, generally calm, and had predictable weather. The seas around the north and west of Europe experienced stronger and less predictable weather. The weather gauge, the advantage of having a following wind, was an important factor in naval battles, particularly to the attackers. Typically westerlies (winds blowing from west to east) dominated Europe, giving naval powers to the west an advantage. Medieval sources on the conduct of medieval naval warfare are less common than those about land-based war. Most medieval chroniclers had no experience of life on the sea and generally were not well informed. Maritime archaeology has helped provide information. Early in the medieval period, ships in the context of warfare were used primarily for transporting troops. In the Mediterranean, naval warfare in the Middle Ages was similar to that under late Roman Empire: fleets of galleys would exchange missile fire and then try to board bow first to allow marines to fight on deck. This mode of naval warfare remained the same into the early modern period, as, for example, at the Battle of Lepanto. Famous admirals included Roger of Lauria, Andrea Doria and Hayreddin Barbarossa. Late medieval maritime warfare was divided in two distinct regions. In the Mediterranean, galleys were used for raiding along coasts, and in the constant fighting for naval bases. In the Atlantic and Baltic there was greater focus on sailing ships that were used mostly for troop transport, with galleys providing fighting support. Galleys were still widely used in the north and were the most numerous warships used by Mediterranean powers with interests in the north, especially the French and Iberian kingdoms. Bulkier ships were developed which were primarily sail-driven, although the long lowboard Viking-style rowed longship saw use well into the 15th century. Their main purpose in the north remained the transportation of soldiers to fight on the decks of the opposing ship (as, for example, at the Battle of Svolder or the Battle of Sluys). Late medieval sailing warships resembled floating fortresses, with towers in the bows and at the stern (respectively, the forecastle and aftcastle). The large superstructure made these warships quite unstable, but the decisive defeats that the more mobile but considerably lower boarded longships suffered at the hands of high-boarded cogs in the 15th century ended the issue of which ship type would dominate northern European warfare. Introduction of guns: The introduction of guns was the first step towards major changes in naval warfare, but it only slowly changed the dynamics of ship-to-ship combat. The first guns on ships were introduced in the 14th century and consisted of small wrought-iron pieces placed on the open decks and in the fighting tops, often requiring only one or two men to handle them. They were designed to injure, kill or simply stun, shock and frighten the enemy before boarding. As guns were made more durable to withstand stronger gunpowder charges, they increased their potential to inflict critical damage to the vessel rather than just their crews. Since these guns were much heavier than the earlier anti-personnel weapons, they had to be placed lower in the ships, and fire from gunports, to avoid ships becoming unstable. In Northern Europe the technique of building ships with clinker planking made it difficult to cut ports in the hull; clinker-built (or clench-built) ships had much of their structural strength in the outer hull. The solution was the gradual adoption of carvel-built ships that relied on an internal skeleton structure to bear the weight of the ship. The first ships to actually mount heavy cannon capable of sinking ships were galleys, with large wrought-iron pieces mounted directly on the timbers in the bow. The first example is known from a woodcut of a Venetian galley from 1486. Heavy artillery on galleys was mounted in the bow which fit conveniently with the long-standing tactical tradition of attacking head-on and bow-first. The ordnance on galleys was quite heavy from its introduction in the 1480s, and capable of quickly demolishing medieval-style stone walls that still prevailed until the 16th century. This temporarily upended the strength of older seaside fortresses, which had to be rebuilt to cope with gunpowder weapons. The addition of guns also improved the amphibious abilities of galleys as they could assault supported with heavy firepower, and could be even more effectively defended when beached stern-first. Galleys and similar oared vessels remained uncontested as the most effective gun-armed warships in theory until the 1560s, and in practice for a few decades more, and were considered a grave risk to sailing warships. Rise of infantry: In the Medieval period, the mounted cavalry long held sway on the battlefield. Heavily armoured mounted knights represented a formidable foe for reluctant peasant draftees and lightly armoured freemen. To defeat mounted cavalry, infantry used swarms of missiles or a tightly packed phalanx of men, techniques honed in antiquity by the Greeks. Swiss pikemen: The use of long pikes and densely packed foot troops was not uncommon in the Middle Ages. The Flemish footmen at the Battle of the Golden Spurs met and overcame French knights in 1302, as the Lombards did in Legnano in 1176 and the Scots held their own against heavily armoured English cavalry. During the St. Louis crusade, dismounted French knights formed a tight lance-and-shield phalanx to repel Egyptian cavalry. The Swiss used pike tactics in the late medieval period. While pikemen usually grouped and awaited a mounted attack, the Swiss developed flexible formations and aggressive manoeuvring, forcing their opponents to respond. The Swiss won at Morgarten, Laupen, Sempach, Grandson and Murten, and between 1450 and 1550 every leading prince in Europe (except the English and Scottish) hired Swiss pikemen, or emulated their tactics and weapons (e.g., the German Landsknechte). Welsh and English longbowmen: The Welsh and English longbowmen used a single-piece longbow (but some bows later developed a composite design) to deliver arrows that could penetrate contemporary mail and damage/dent plate armour. The longbow was a difficult weapon to master, requiring long years of use and constant practice. A skilled longbowman could shoot about 12 shots per minute. This rate of fire was far superior to competing weapons like the crossbow or early gunpowder weapons. The nearest competitor to the longbow was the much more expensive crossbow, used often by urban militias and mercenary forces. The crossbow had greater penetrating power and did not require the extended years of training. However, it lacked the rate of fire of the longbow. At Crécy and Agincourt bowmen unleashed clouds of arrows into the ranks of knights. At Crécy, even 5,000 Genoese crossbowmen could not dislodge them from their hill. At Agincourt, thousands of French knights were brought down by armour-piercing bodkin point arrows and horse-maiming broadheads. Longbowmen decimated an entire generation of the French nobility. Transition to gunpowder warfare: In 1326 the earliest known European picture of a gun appeared in a manuscript by Walter de Milemete. In 1350, Petrarch wrote that the presence of cannons on the battlefield was 'as common and familiar as other kinds of arms'. Early artillery played a limited role in the Hundred Years' War, and it became indispensable in the Italian Wars of 1494–1559, marking the beginning of early modern warfare. Charles VIII, during his invasion of Italy, brought with him the first truly mobile siege train: culverins and bombards mounted on wheeled carriages, which could be deployed against an enemy stronghold immediately after arrival. Strategy and tactics: Medieval campaigns were planned with strategy in mind, such as maintaining unity in morale, planning troop movements, and mount offensives with numerical advantages. Medieval armies used strategic deception, such as misleading troop movements, to take opposing armies by surprise. They would also spread misinformation regarding army size and provisions. One common tactic used in medieval warfare was raiding; this benefitted the attacking army by with new supplies and wealth while damaging the target's resources. De re militari: Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus wrote De re militari (Concerning Military Matters) possibly in the late 4th century. Described by historian Walter Goffart as "the bible of warfare throughout the Middle Ages", De re militari was widely distributed through the Latin West. While Western Europe relied on a single text for the basis of its military knowledge, the Byzantine Empire in Southeastern Europe had a succession of military writers.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Medieval warfare

Strategy and tactics: Medieval campaigns were planned with strategy in mind, such as maintaining unity in morale, planning troop movements, and mount offensives with numerical advantages. Medieval armies used strategic deception, such as misleading troop movements, to take opposing armies by surprise. They would also spread misinformation regarding army size and provisions. One common tactic used in medieval warfare was raiding; this benefitted the attacking army by with new supplies and wealth while damaging the target's resources. De re militari: Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus wrote De re militari (Concerning Military Matters) possibly in the late 4th century. Described by historian Walter Goffart as "the bible of warfare throughout the Middle Ages", De re militari was widely distributed through the Latin West. While Western Europe relied on a single text for the basis of its military knowledge, the Byzantine Empire in Southeastern Europe had a succession of military writers. Though Vegetius had no military experience and De re militari was derived from the works of Cato and Frontinus, his books were the standard for military discourse in Western Europe from their production until the 16th century. De re militari was divided into five books: who should be a soldier and the skills they needed to learn, the composition and structure of an army, field tactics, how to conduct and withstand sieges, and the role of the navy. According to Vegetius, infantry was the most important element of an army because it was cheap compared to cavalry and could be deployed on any terrain. One of the tenets he put forward was that a general should only engage in battle when he was sure of victory or had no other choice. As archaeologist Robert Liddiard explains, "Pitched battles, particularly in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, were rare." Although his work was widely reproduced, and over 200 copies, translations, and extracts survive today, the extent to which Vegetius affected the actual practice of warfare as opposed to its concept is unclear because of his habit of stating the obvious. Historian Michael Clanchy noted "the medieval axiom that laymen are illiterate and its converse that clergy are literate", so it may be the case that few soldiers read Vegetius' work. While their Roman predecessors were well-educated and had been experienced in warfare, the European nobility of the early Medieval period were not renowned for their education, but from the 12th century, it became more common for them to read. Some soldiers regarded the experience of warfare as more valuable than reading about it; for example, Geoffroi de Charny, a 14th century knight who wrote about warfare, recommended that his audience should learn by observing and asking advice from their superiors. Vegetius remained prominent in medieval literature on warfare, although it is uncertain to what extent his work was read by the warrior class as opposed to the clergy. In 1489, King Henry VII of England commissioned the translation of De re militari into English, "so every gentleman born to arms and all manner of men of war, captains, soldiers, victuallers and all others would know how they ought to behave in the feats of wars and battles". Supplies and logistics: Medieval warfare largely predated the use of supply trains, which meant that armies had to acquire food supplies from the territory they were passing through. This meant that large-scale looting by soldiers was unavoidable, and was actively encouraged in the 14th century with its emphasis on chevauchée tactics, where mounted troops would burn and pillage enemy territory in order to distract and demoralize the enemy while denying them their supplies. Through the medieval period, soldiers were responsible for supplying themselves, either through foraging, looting, or purchases. Even so, military commanders often provided their troops with food and supplies, but this would be provided instead of the soldiers' wages, or soldiers would be expected to pay for it from their wages, either at cost or even with a profit. In 1294, the same year John II de Balliol of Scotland refused to support Edward I of England's planned invasion of France, Edward I implemented a system in Wales and Scotland where sheriffs would acquire foodstuffs, horses and carts from merchants with compulsory sales at prices fixed below typical market prices under the Crown's rights of prise and purveyance. These goods would then be transported to Royal Magazines in southern Scotland and along the Scottish border where English conscripts under his command could purchase them. This continued during the First War of Scottish Independence which began in 1296, though the system was unpopular and was ended with Edward I's death in 1307. Starting under the rule of Edward II in 1307 and ending under the rule of Edward III in 1337, the English instead used a system where merchants would be asked to meet armies with supplies for the soldiers to purchase. This led to discontent as the merchants saw an opportunity to profiteer, forcing the troops to pay well above normal market prices for food. As Edward III went to war with France in the Hundred Years' War (starting in 1337), the English returned to a practice of foraging and raiding to meet their logistical needs. This practice lasted throughout the war, extending through the remainder of Edward III's reign into the reign of Henry VI. Regional examples: Arabs: The initial Muslim conquests began in the 7th century after the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and were marked by a century of rapid Arab expansion beyond the Arabian Peninsula under the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates. Under the Rashidun, the Arabs conquered the Persian Empire, along with Roman Syria and Roman Egypt during the Byzantine-Arab Wars, all within just seven years from 633 to 640. Under the Umayyads, the Arabs annexed North Africa and southern Italy from the Romans and the Arab Empire soon stretched from parts of the Indian subcontinent, across Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, and southern Italy, to the Iberian Peninsula and the Pyrenees. The early Arab army mainly consisted of camel-mounted infantry, alongside a few Bedouin cavalry. Constantly outnumbered by their opponent, they did, however, possess the advantage of strategic mobility, their camel-borne nature allowing them to constantly outmaneuver larger Byzantine and Sassanid armies to take prime defensive positions. The Rashidun cavalry, while lacking the number and mounted archery skill of their Roman and Persian counterparts was for the most part skillfully employed, and played a decisive role in many crucial battles such as Battle of Yarmouk. During the 7th century, Arab armies employed weapons such as swords, spears, iron mace and lances. For protection, they used shields and wore helmets and coats of mail, although the latter was extremely rare. The bow and arrow was also utilized. Also, after the naval siege of Constantinople in the 670s, they started to employ greek fire. In contrast to the Roman and Persian army at the time both had large numbers of heavy infantry and heavy cavalry (cataphracts and clibanarii) that were better equipped, heavily protected, and were more experienced and disciplined. The Arab invasions came at a time when both ancient powers were exhausted from the protracted Byzantine–Sassanid Wars, particularly the bitterly fought Byzantine–Sassanid War of 602–628 which had brought both empires close to collapse. Also, the typically multi-ethnic Byzantine force was always wracked by dissension and lacked a unity of command, a similar situation also being encountered among the Sassanids who had been embroiled in a bitter civil war for a decade before the coming of the Arabs. In contrast, the Ridda Wars which preceded the Arab conflicts with both the Sasanids and the Byzantines, had forged the Caliphate's army into a united and loyal fighting force. Vikings: The Vikings were a feared force in Europe because of their savagery and speed of their attacks. Whilst seaborne raids were nothing new at the time, the Vikings refined the practice to a science through their shipbuilding, tactics and training. Unlike other raiders, the Vikings made a lasting impact on the face of Europe. During the Viking age, their expeditions, frequently combining raiding and trading, penetrated most of the old Frankish Empire, the British Isles, the Baltic region, Russia, and both Muslim and Christian Iberia. Many served as mercenaries, and the famed Varangian Guard, serving the Emperor of Constantinople, was drawn principally of Scandinavian warriors. Viking longships were swift and easily manoeuvered; they could navigate deep seas or shallow rivers, and could carry warriors that could be rapidly deployed directly onto land due to the longships being able to land directly. The longship was the enabler of the Viking style of warfare that was fast and mobile, relying heavily on the element of surprise. The usual method was to approach a target with the element of surprise and then retire swiftly using guerrilla-style fighting. The fully armoured Viking raider would wear an iron helmet and a mail hauberk, and fight with a combination of axe, sword, shield, spear or great "Danish" two-handed axe, although the typical raider would be unarmoured, carrying only a bow and arrows, a seax, a shield and spear. European countries with a weak system of government would be unable to organize a suitable response and would naturally suffer the most to Viking raiders.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Medieval warfare

Viking longships were swift and easily manoeuvered; they could navigate deep seas or shallow rivers, and could carry warriors that could be rapidly deployed directly onto land due to the longships being able to land directly. The longship was the enabler of the Viking style of warfare that was fast and mobile, relying heavily on the element of surprise. The usual method was to approach a target with the element of surprise and then retire swiftly using guerrilla-style fighting. The fully armoured Viking raider would wear an iron helmet and a mail hauberk, and fight with a combination of axe, sword, shield, spear or great "Danish" two-handed axe, although the typical raider would be unarmoured, carrying only a bow and arrows, a seax, a shield and spear. European countries with a weak system of government would be unable to organize a suitable response and would naturally suffer the most to Viking raiders. Viking raiders always had the option to fall back in the face of a superior force or stubborn defence and then reappear to attack other locations or retreat to their bases. As time went on, Viking raids became more sophisticated, with coordinated strikes involving multiple forces and large armies, as the "Great Heathen Army" that ravaged Anglo-Saxon England in the 9th century. In time, the Vikings began to hold on to the areas they raided, first wintering and then consolidating footholds for further expansion later. After the Vikings consolidated their kingdoms of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, this period marks the end of significant raider activity both for plunder or conquest; adapting a more continental European tradition of warfare, whilst retaining an emphasis on naval power – the "Viking" clinker-built warship was used in the war until the 14th century. However, developments in shipbuilding elsewhere removed the advantage they previously enjoyed at sea, whilst castle building throughout frustrated and eventually ended Viking raids. The Scandinavian armies of the High Middle Ages followed the usual pattern of the Northern European armies, but with a stronger emphasis on infantry. The terrain of Scandinavia favoured heavy infantry, and whilst the nobles fought mounted in the continental fashion, the Scandinavian peasants formed a well-armed and well-armoured infantry, of which approximately 30% to 50% would be archers or crossbowmen. The crossbow, the flatbow and the longbow were especially popular in Sweden and Finland. The chainmail, the lamellar armour and the coat of plates were the usual Scandinavian infantry armour before the era of plate armour. Mongols: By 1241, having conquered large parts of Russia, the Mongols continued the invasion of Europe with a massive three-pronged advance, following the fleeing Cumans, who had established an uncertain alliance with King Bela IV of Hungary. They first invaded Poland, and finally, Hungary, culminating in the crushing defeat of the Hungarians in the Battle of Mohi. The Mongol aim seems to have consistently been to defeat the Hungarian-Cuman alliance. The Mongols raided across the borders to Austria and Bohemia in the summer when the Great Khan died, and the Mongol princes returned home to elect a new Great Khan. The Golden Horde would frequently clash with Hungarians, Lithuanians and Poles in the thirteenth century, with two large raids in the 1260s and 1280s respectively. In 1284 the Hungarians repelled the last major raid into Hungary, and in 1287 the Poles repelled a raid against them. The instability in the Golden Horde seems to have quieted the western front of the Horde. Also, the large scale invasions and raiding that had previously characterized the expansion of the Mongols was cut short probably in some part due to the death of the last great Mongol leader, Tamerlane. The Hungarians and Poles had responded to the mobile threat by extensive fortification-building, army reform in the form of better-armoured cavalry, and refusing battle unless they could control the site of the battlefield to deny the Mongols local superiority. The Lithuanians relied on their forested homelands for defence and used their cavalry for raiding into Mongol-dominated Russia. When attacking fortresses they would launch dead or diseased animals into fortresses to help spread disease. Turks and Central Asia: An early Turkic group, the Seljuks, were known for their cavalry archers. These fierce nomads were often raiding empires, such as the Byzantine Empire, and they scored several victories using mobility and timing to defeat the heavy cataphracts of the Byzantines. One notable victory was at Manzikert, where conflict among the generals of the Byzantines gave the Turks the perfect opportunity to strike. They hit the cataphracts with arrows, and outmanoeuvred them, then rode down their less mobile infantry with light cavalry that used scimitars (in use since the 9th century). When gunpowder was introduced, the Ottoman Turks of the Ottoman Empire hired the mercenaries that used the gunpowder weapons and obtained their instruction for the Janissaries. Out of these Ottoman soldiers rose the Janissaries (yeni ceri; "new soldier"), from which they also recruited many of their heavy infantry. Along with the use of cavalry and early grenades, the Ottomans mounted an offensive in the early Renaissance period and attacked Europe, taking Constantinople by massed infantry assaults. Like many other nomadic peoples, the Turks featured a core of heavy cavalry from the upper classes. These evolved into the Sipahis (feudal landholders similar to western knights and Byzantine pronoiai) and Qapukulu (door slaves, taken from youth like Janissaries and trained to be royal servants and elite soldiers, mainly cataphracts). Already by the late 13th century, the Khilji dynasty utilized several siege technologies such as trebuchets, ballistas and wooden parapets by their war engineers. In order to breach a fortification's curtain walls, long earthen-ramps were used to fill up moats. In ranged military techniques, they used the powerful war-horses from Central Asia with mounted archers. Equipment: Weapons Medieval weapons consisted of many different types of ranged and hand-held objects: Melee Battleaxe Horseman's pick Blades Arming sword Dagger Knife Longsword Messer Blunt weapons Club Mace War hammer Polearm Halberd Lance Military fork, the weaponized Pitchfork Pollaxe Spear Ranged Bow Longbow Crossbow Throwing axe Throwing spear and Javelin Sling Armour Body armour Leather Fabric Chain mail Brigandine Plate Shield Helmet Artillery and Siege engine Battering ram Catapult Trebuchet Ballista Siege tower Animals Camels in warfare Dogs in warfare Horses in warfare and Horses in the Middle Ages War elephant War pigs See also: Notes: References: Archdeacon, Thomas of Split (2006). History of the Bishops of Salona and Split – Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum pontificum (in Latin and English). Budapest: Central European University Press. ISBN 978-963-7326-59-2. DeVries, Kelly (1992), Military Medieval Technology, Broadview Press, ISBN 0-921149-74-3 Fernández-Armesto, Felipe (1999), "Naval Warfare after the Viking Age, c. 1100–1500", in Keen, Maurice (ed.), Medieval Warfare: A History, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 230–252, ISBN 0-19-820639-9 Gillingham, John (1992), "William the Bastard at War", in Strickland, Matthew (ed.), Anglo-Norman warfare: Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman Military Organization and Warfare, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, pp. 143–160, ISBN 0-85115-327-5 Glete, Jan, Warfare at Sea, 1500–1650: Maritime Conflicts and the Transformation of Europe. Routledge, London. 2000. ISBN 0-415-21455-6 Goffart, Walter (1977), "The date and purpose of Vegetius' De Re Militari", Traditio, xxxiii: 65–100, doi:10.1017/S0362152900009077, JSTOR 27831025, S2CID 151406462 Guilmartin, John Francis, Gunpowder and Galleys: Changing Technology and Mediterranean Warfare at Sea in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge University Press, London. 1974. Hattendorf, John B. & Unger, Richard W. (editors), War at Sea in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Woodbridge, Suffolk. 2003. ISBN 0-85115-903-6 [1] Liddiard, Robert (2005), Castles in Context: Power, Symbolism and Landscape, 1066 to 1500, Macclesfield: Windgather Press Ltd, ISBN 0-9545575-2-2 Lehmann, L. Th., Galleys in the Netherlands. Meulenhoff, Amsterdam. 1984.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Medieval warfare

Cambridge University Press, London. 1974. Hattendorf, John B. & Unger, Richard W. (editors), War at Sea in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Woodbridge, Suffolk. 2003. ISBN 0-85115-903-6 [1] Liddiard, Robert (2005), Castles in Context: Power, Symbolism and Landscape, 1066 to 1500, Macclesfield: Windgather Press Ltd, ISBN 0-9545575-2-2 Lehmann, L. Th., Galleys in the Netherlands. Meulenhoff, Amsterdam. 1984. ISBN 90-290-1854-2 Marsden, Peter, Sealed by Time: The Loss and Recovery of the Mary Rose. The Archaeology of the Mary Rose, Volume 1. The Mary Rose Trust, Portsmouth. 2003. ISBN 0-9544029-0-1 Nicholson, Helen (2004), Medieval Warfare: Theory and Practice of War in Europe, 300–1500, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 0-333-76330-0 Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus (1996), Milner, N. P. (ed.), Vegetius: epitome of military science, Translated Texts for Historians, vol. xvi, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press Rodger, Nicholas A. M., "The Development of Broadside Gunnery, 1450–1650." Mariner's Mirror 82 (1996), pp. 301–324. Rodger, Nicholas A. M., The Safeguard of the Sea: A Naval History of Britain 660–1649. W.W. Norton & Company, New York. 1997. ISBN 0-393-04579-X Laury Sarti, "Perceiving War and the Military in Early Christian Gaul (ca. 400–700 A.D.)" (= Brill's Series on the Early Middle Ages, 22), Leiden/Boston 2013, ISBN 978-9004-25618-7. Further reading: External links: Medieval Warfare Siege warfare, open battles, weapons, armour and fighting techniques. Database of thousands of English soldiers during the later medieval period Medieval History Database (MHDB), which includes medieval military records Guide to researching records of medieval soldiers, from the British National Archives site

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Mercenary

International and national laws of war: Protocol Additional GC 1977 (APGC77) is a 1977 amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions. Article 47 of the protocol provides the most widely accepted international definition of a mercenary, though it is not endorsed by some countries, including the United States. The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 states: Art 47. Mercenaries All the criteria, as listed in 2(a) through 2(f), must be met, according to the Geneva Convention, for a combatant to be considered a mercenary. While mercenaries do not enjoy the same protection as prisoners of war do, they must still be treated humanely according to the rules of the Protocol and they may not be punished without a trial. On 4 December 1989, the United Nations passed resolution 44/34, the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. It entered into force on 20 October 2001 and is usually known as the UN Mercenary Convention. Article 1 of the UN Mercenary Convention contains the definition of a mercenary. Article 1.1 is similar to Article 47 of Protocol I. Article 1.2 broadens the definition to include a non-national recruited to overthrow a "Government or otherwise undermin[e] the constitutional order of a State; or Undermin[e] the territorial integrity of a State"; and "Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation". Under Article 1.2, a person does not have to take a direct part in the hostilities in a planned coup d'état to be a mercenary. Austria: If a person is proven to have worked as a mercenary for any other country while retaining Austrian citizenship, their Austrian citizenship will be revoked. France: In 2003, France criminalized mercenary activities, as defined by the protocol to the Geneva convention for French citizens, permanent residents, and legal entities (Penal Code, L436-1, L436-2, L436-3, L436-4, L436-5). This law does not prevent French citizens from serving as volunteers in foreign forces. The law applies to military activities with a specifically mercenary motive or with a mercenary level of remuneration. However, due to jurisdictional loopholes several French companies provide mercenary services. The French state owns 50% of Défense conseil international, which it founded, a private military company (PMC) which does not supply any fighters but is used to export military training services. It realised a profit of €222 million in 2019. Germany: It is an offence "to recruit" German citizens "for military duty in a military or military-like facility in support of a foreign power" (§109h StGB). Furthermore, a German citizen who enlists in the armed forces of a state they are also a citizen of risks the loss of their citizenship (§28 StAG). South Africa: In 1998, South Africa passed the Foreign Military Assistance Act that banned citizens and residents from any involvement in foreign wars, except for humanitarian operations, unless a government committee approved deployment. In 2005, the legislation was reviewed by the government because: South African citizens were working as security guards in Iraq during the American occupation of Iraq; consequences of the mercenary soldier sponsorship case against Mark Thatcher for the "possible funding and logistical assistance in relation to an alleged attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea" organized by Simon Mann. As of 2010, South Africa forbids citizens from fighting in foreign wars unless they are under the direct control of their own national armed forces. United Kingdom: In the United Kingdom, the Foreign Enlistment Act 1819 and the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 make it unlawful for British subjects to join the armed forces of any state warring with another state at peace with Britain. During the Greek War of Independence, British volunteers fought with the Greek rebels, which could have been unlawful per the Foreign Enlistment Act. It was unclear whether or not the Greek rebels constituted a 'state', but the law was later clarified to indicate that they were. The British government considered using the Act against British subjects fighting for the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War and the FNLA in the Angolan Civil War, but on both occasions chose not to do so. United States: Civilians with the US Armed Forces lose their law of war protection from direct attack if, and for such time as, they directly participate in hostilities. The Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893 (5 U.S.C. § 3108) forbids the US government from using Pinkerton National Detective Agency employees or similar private police companies. In 1977, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit interpreted the Anti-Pinkerton Act as forbidding the U.S. government from employing companies offering "mercenary, quasi-military forces" for hire (United States ex rel. Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 (1978)). There is disagreement over whether this proscription is limited to strikebreakers only, because Weinberger v. Equifax states the following: The purpose of the Act and the legislative history reveal that an organization was "similar" to the Pinkerton Detective Agency only if it offered for hire mercenary, quasi-military forces as strikebreakers and armed guards. It had the secondary effect of deterring any other organization from providing such services lest it be branded a "similar organization." The legislative history supports this view and no other. In the 7 June 1978 Letter to the heads of Federal Departments and Agencies, the Comptroller General interpreted this decision in a way that carved out an exemption for "Guard and Protective Services". A United States Department of Defense (DoD) interim rule revised DoD Instruction 3020.41 to authorize contractors, other than private security contractors, to use deadly force against enemy armed forces only in self-defense (71 Fed. Reg. 34826), effective 16 June 2006. Per that interim rule, private security contractors were authorized to use deadly force when protecting their client's assets and persons, consistent with their contract's mission statement. One interpretation is that this authorized contractors to engage in combat on behalf of the US government. It is the combatant commander's responsibility to ensure that private security contract mission statements do not authorize performance of inherently governmental military functions, i.e. preemptive attacks, assaults, or raids, etc. On 18 August 2006, the US Comptroller General rejected bid protest arguments that the United States Army contracts violated the Anti-Pinkerton Act by requiring that contractors provide armed convoy escort vehicles and labor, weapons, and equipment for internal security operations at Victory Base Complex in Iraq. The Comptroller General reasoned the act was unviolated because the contracts did not require contractors to provide quasi-military forces as strikebreakers. In 2007, the US Army was temporarily barred from awarding a $475 million security contract in Iraq, the largest one at that time, because of a lawsuit filed by a US citizen alleging violation of the Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893. Three of the candidates under final consideration for the contract (to include intelligence services and security for reconstruction work by the United States Army Corps of Engineers) included British firms Aegis Defence Services and Erinys Iraq, as well as Blackwater of North Carolina. The case was later dismissed. Foreign national servicemen: The better-known combat units in which foreign nationals serve in another country's armed forces are the Gurkha regiments of the British Army and Indian Army, the French Foreign Legion, the Spanish Legion and the Ukraine Foreign Legion. Recruits from countries of the Commonwealth of Nations in the British Army swear allegiance to the British monarch and are liable to operate in any unit. Gurkhas, however, operate in dedicated Gurkha units of the British Army (specifically units that are administered by the Brigade of Gurkhas) and the Indian Army. Although they are nationals of Nepal, a country that is not part of the Commonwealth, they still swear allegiance (either to the Crown or the Constitution of India) and abide by the rules and regulations under which all British or Indian soldiers serve. French Foreign Legionnaires serve in the French Foreign Legion, which deploys and fights as an organized unit of the French Army. This means that as members of the armed forces of Britain, India, and France these soldiers are not classed as mercenary soldiers per APGC77 Art 47.e and 47.f. Volunteers for the Ukraine Foreign legion have three-year contracts, and are eligible for Ukrainian citizenship (the probation period being the duration of the war). Private military companies: The private military company (PMC) is a private company providing armed combat or security services for financial gain. PMCs refer to their personnel as security contractors or private military contractors. PMC contractors are civilians (in governmental, international, and civil organizations) authorized to accompany an army to the field; thus, the term civilian contractor.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Mercenary

French Foreign Legionnaires serve in the French Foreign Legion, which deploys and fights as an organized unit of the French Army. This means that as members of the armed forces of Britain, India, and France these soldiers are not classed as mercenary soldiers per APGC77 Art 47.e and 47.f. Volunteers for the Ukraine Foreign legion have three-year contracts, and are eligible for Ukrainian citizenship (the probation period being the duration of the war). Private military companies: The private military company (PMC) is a private company providing armed combat or security services for financial gain. PMCs refer to their personnel as security contractors or private military contractors. PMC contractors are civilians (in governmental, international, and civil organizations) authorized to accompany an army to the field; thus, the term civilian contractor. PMCs may use armed force, defined as: "legally established enterprises that make a profit, by either providing services involving the potential exercise of [armed] force in a systematic way and by military means, and/or by the transfer of that potential to clients through training and other practices, such as logistics support, equipment procurement, and intelligence gathering". Private paramilitary forces are functionally mercenary armies, though they may serve as security guards or military advisors; however, national governments reserve the right to control the number, nature, and armaments of such private armies, arguing that, provided they are not pro-actively employed in front-line combat, they are not mercenaries. In February 2002, a British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) report about PMCs noted that the demands of the military service from the UN and international civil organizations might mean that it is cheaper to pay PMCs than use soldiers. PMC "civilian contractors" tend to have poor reputations among professional government soldiers and officers—the U.S. Military Command has questioned their war zone behavior. In September 2005, Brigadier General Karl Horst, deputy commander of the Third Infantry Division charged with Baghdad security after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, said of DynCorp and other PMCs: These guys run loose in this country and do stupid stuff. There's no authority over them, so you can't come down on them hard when they escalate force... They shoot people, and someone else has to deal with the aftermath. It happens all over the place. In 2004, the US and Coalition governments hired PMCs for security in Iraq. In March 2004, four Blackwater employees escorting food supplies and other equipment were attacked and killed in Fallujah in a videotaped attack; the killings and subsequent dismemberments were a cause for the First Battle of Fallujah. Afghan war operations also boosted the business. The United States has made extensive use of PMCs in Afghanistan since 2001, mostly in a defensive role. PMC teams have been used to guard bases and to protect VIPs from Taliban assassins, but almost never in offensive operations. One mercenary stated about his work in Afghanistan: "We are there purely to protect the principals and get them out, we're not there to get into huge firefights with the bad guys". One team from DynCorp provided bodyguards for President Hamid Karzai. Colombia: In 2006, a US congressional report listed a number of PMCs and other enterprises that have signed contracts to carry out anti-narcotics operations and related activities as part of Plan Colombia. Referring to the use of American PMCs in Colombia, the former US Ambassador to Colombia Myles Frechette has said: "Congress and the American people don't want any servicemen killed overseas. So it makes sense that if contractors want to risk their lives, they get the job". Not only have foreign PMCs worked in Colombia, but a disproportionate number of the mercenaries with PMCs are Colombian, as Colombia's long history of civil war has led to a surplus of experienced soldiers. Also, Colombian soldiers are much cheaper than soldiers from developed countries. PMCs from several Middle Eastern countries have signed contracts with the Colombian Defense Ministry to carry out security or military activities. UN concerns over legality of PMCs: The United Nations questions whether PMC soldiers are sufficiently accountable for their war zone actions. A common argument for using PMCs (used by the PMCs themselves), is that PMCs may be able to help combat genocide and civilian slaughter where the UN or other countries are unwilling or unable to intervene. Yet, after considering using PMCs to support UN operations, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, decided against it. In October 2007, the United Nations released a two-year study that stated, that although hired as "security guards", private contractors were performing military duties. The report found that the use of contractors such as Blackwater was a "new form of mercenary activity" and illegal under international law. Most countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, are not signatories to the 1989 United Nations Mercenary Convention banning the use of mercenaries. A spokesman for the U.S. Mission to U.N. denied that Blackwater security guards were mercenaries, saying "Accusations that U.S. government-contracted security guards, of whatever nationality, are mercenaries is inaccurate and demeaning to men and women who put their lives on the line to protect people and facilities every day." History: Europe: Classical era: Greek mercenaries in Persian Empire: Xerxes I, King of Persia, employed Arcadian mercenaries during his invasion of Greece. In Anabasis, Xenophon recounts how Cyrus the Younger hired a large army of Greek mercenaries (the "Ten Thousand") in 401 BC to seize the throne of Persia from his brother, Artaxerxes II. Though Cyrus' army was victorious at the Battle of Cunaxa, Cyrus himself was killed in battle and the expedition rendered moot. Stranded deep in enemy territory, the Spartan general Clearchus and most of the other Greek generals were subsequently killed by treachery. Xenophon played an instrumental role in encouraging "The Ten Thousand" Greek army to march north to the Black Sea in an epic fighting retreat. The Sileraioi were a group of ancient mercenaries most likely employed by the tyrant Dionysius I of Syracuse. In 378 BC the Persian Empire hired the Athenian general Iphicrates with his mercenaries in the Egyptian campaign. The Mania, who was a sub-satrap, used Greek mercenaries in order to capture other cities in the region. Memnon of Rhodes (380–333 BC) was the commander of the Greek mercenaries working for the Persian King Darius III when Alexander the Great of Macedonia invaded Persia in 334 BC and won the Battle of the Granicus River. Alexander also employed Greek mercenaries during his campaigns. These were men who fought for him directly and not those who fought in city-state units attached to his army. Greek mercenaries in ancient India: Tamil poems described the Greek soldiers who served as mercenaries for Indian kings as: "The valiant-eyed Yavanas (Greeks), whose bodies were strong and of terrible aspect". Alfred Charles Auguste Foucher said that some of the troops of Mara in the Gandhara sculptures may represent Greek mercenaries. Stephanus of Byzantium wrote about a city called Daedala or Daidala (Ancient Greek: Δαίδαλα) in India, which he called Indo-Cretan, most probably because it was a settlement of Cretan mercenaries. Carthage: Carthage contracted Balearic Islands shepherds as slingers during the Punic Wars against Rome. The vast majority of the Carthaginian military – except the highest officers, the navy, and the home guard – were mercenaries. Xanthippus of Carthage was a Spartan mercenary general employed by Carthage. Greek mercenaries were hired by Carthage to fight against the Dionysius I of Syracuse. Dionysius made Carthage pay a very high ransom for the Carthaginian prisoners, but he left the Greek mercenaries prisoners free without any ransom. This made the Carthaginians suspicious of their Greek mercenaries and discharged them all from their service. With this trick Dionysius did not have to fight again against the Greek mercenaries of Carthage who were very dangerous enemies. Byzantine Empire: In the late Roman Empire, it became increasingly difficult for Emperors and generals to raise military units from the citizenry for various reasons: lack of manpower, lack of time available for training, lack of materials, and, inevitably, political considerations. Therefore, beginning in the late 4th century, the empire often contracted whole bands of barbarians either within the legions or as autonomous foederati. The barbarians were Romanized and surviving veterans were established in areas requiring population. The Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Empire is the best known formation made up of barbarian mercenaries (see next section). Other: Members of independent Thracian tribes such as the Bessi and Dii often joined the ranks of large organized armies as mercenaries. The Sons of Mars were Italian mercenaries used by the Greek kings of Syracuse until after the Punic Wars. A figure in oral legend, Milesius was given the princess Scota after conducting a successful campaign for Ancient Egypt. Mithridates VI Eupator recruited a large number of Iranians along with the Galatians into the Pontic army during the Mithridatic Wars against Rome, using the Leucosyri, Persians and Scythians. Illyrians were hired across the Balkans and further. They were known for their unreliability.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Mercenary

The barbarians were Romanized and surviving veterans were established in areas requiring population. The Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Empire is the best known formation made up of barbarian mercenaries (see next section). Other: Members of independent Thracian tribes such as the Bessi and Dii often joined the ranks of large organized armies as mercenaries. The Sons of Mars were Italian mercenaries used by the Greek kings of Syracuse until after the Punic Wars. A figure in oral legend, Milesius was given the princess Scota after conducting a successful campaign for Ancient Egypt. Mithridates VI Eupator recruited a large number of Iranians along with the Galatians into the Pontic army during the Mithridatic Wars against Rome, using the Leucosyri, Persians and Scythians. Illyrians were hired across the Balkans and further. They were known for their unreliability. Medieval warfare: Byzantine emperors followed the Roman practice and contracted foreigners especially for their personal corps guard called the Varangian Guard. They were chosen among war-prone peoples, of whom the Varangians (Norsemen) were preferred. Their mission was to protect the Emperor and Empire and since they did not have links to the Greeks, they were expected to be ready to suppress rebellions. One of the most famous guards was the future king Harald III of Norway, also known as Harald Hardrada ("Hard-counsel"), who arrived in Constantinople in 1035 and was employed as a Varangian Guard. He participated in eighteen battles and was promoted to akolythos, the commander of the Guard, before returning home in 1043. He was killed at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066 when his army was defeated by an English army commanded by King Harold Godwinson. The point at which the Varangians ceased to be in the service of the Roman Empire remains unclear. In England at the time of the Norman Conquest, Flemings (natives of Flanders) formed a substantial mercenary element in the forces of William the Conqueror with many remaining in England as settlers under the Normans. Contingents of mercenary Flemish soldiers were to form significant forces in England throughout the time of the Norman and early Plantagenet dynasties (11th and 12th centuries). A prominent example of these were the Flemings who fought during the English civil wars, known as the Anarchy or the Nineteen-Year Winter (AD 1135 to 1154), under the command of William of Ypres, who was King Stephen's chief lieutenant from 1139 to 1154 and who was made Earl of Kent by Stephen. In Italy, the condottiero was a military chief offering his troops, the condottieri, to Italian city-states. The condottieri were extensively used by the Italian city-states in their wars against one another. At times, the condottieri seized control of the state, as one condottiero, Francesco Sforza, made himself the Duke of Milan in 1450. During the ages of the Taifa kingdoms of the Iberian peninsula, Christian knights like El Cid could fight for a Muslim ruler against his Christian or Muslim enemies. The Almogavars originally fought for the counts of Barcelona and kings of Aragon, but as the Catalan Company, they followed Roger de Flor in the service of the Byzantine Empire. In 1311, the Catalan Great Company defeated at the Battle of Halmyros their former employer, Walter V, Count of Brienne, after he refused to pay them, and took over the Duchy of Athens. The Great Company ruled much of central and southern Greece until 1388–1390 when a rival mercenary company, the Navarrese Company were hired to oust them. Catalan and German mercenaries also had prominent role in the Serbian victory over Bulgarians in the Battle of Velbuzd in 1330. During the later Middle Ages, Free Companies (or Free Lances) were formed, consisting of companies of mercenary troops. Nation-states lacked the funds needed to maintain standing forces, so they tended to hire free companies to serve in their armies during wartime. Such companies typically formed at the ends of periods of conflict, when men-at-arms were no longer needed by their respective governments. The veteran soldiers thus looked for other forms of employment, often becoming mercenaries. Free Companies would often specialize in forms of combat that required longer periods of training that was not available in the form of a mobilized militia. The Routiers formed a distinctive subculture in medieval France who alternated between serving as mercenaries in wartime and bandits in peacetime. The routiers were very destructive and became a significant social problem. After the Treaty of Brétigny ended the war between England and France in 1360, the French countryside was overrun by Free Companies of routiers while the French Crown lacked the necessary military and economic strength to put an end to their activities. To rid France of the rampaging mercenaries and to overthrow the pro-English King Pedro the Cruel of Castile, Marshal Bertrand du Guesclin was directed by King Charles V of France to take the Free Companies into Castile with the orders to put the pro-French Enrique de Trastámara on the Castilian throne. Guesclin's mercanaries were organized into the Big Companies and French Companies and placed a decisive role in putting Enrique on the Castilian throne in 1369, who styled himself King Enrique II, the first Castilian monarch of the House of Trastámara. The White Company commanded by Sir John Hawkwood is the best known English Free Company of the 14th century. Between the 13th and 17th centuries the Gallowglass fought within the Islands of Britain and also mainland Europe. A Welshman Owain Lawgoch (Owain of the Red Hand) formed a free company and fought for the French against the English during the Hundred Years' War, before being assassinated by a Scot named Jon Lamb, under the orders of the English Crown, during the siege of Mortagne in 1378. 15th and 16th centuries: Swiss mercenaries were sought during the late 15th and early 16th centuries as being an effective fighting force, until their somewhat rigid battle formations became vulnerable to arquebuses and artillery being developed at the same time. The Swiss Guard in particular were employed by the Papal States from 1506 (continuing to serve today as the military of Vatican City). It was then that the German landsknechts, colourful mercenaries with a redoubtable reputation, took over the Swiss forces' legacy and became the most formidable force of the late 15th and throughout the 16th century, being hired by all the powers in Europe and often fighting at opposite sides. Sir Thomas More in his Utopia advocated the use of mercenaries in preference to citizens. The barbarian mercenaries employed by the Utopians are thought to be inspired by the Swiss mercenaries. A class of mercenaries known as the Gallowglass dominated warfare in Ireland and Scotland between the 13th and 16th centuries. They were a heavily armed and armored elite force that often doubled as a chieftain's bodyguard. At approximately the same period, Niccolò Machiavelli argued against the use of mercenary armies in his book of political advice The Prince. His rationale was that since the sole motivation of mercenaries is their pay, they will not be inclined to take the kind of risks that can turn the tide of a battle, but may cost them their lives. He also noted that a mercenary who failed was obviously no good, but one who succeeded may be even more dangerous. He astutely pointed out that a successful mercenary army no longer needs its employer if it is more militarily powerful than its supposed superior. This explained the frequent, violent betrayals that characterized mercenary/client relations in Italy, because neither side trusted the other. He believed that citizens with a real attachment to their home country will be more motivated to defend it and thus make much better soldiers. The Stratioti or Stradioti (Italian: Stradioti or Stradiotti; Greek: Στρατιώτες, Stratiotes) were mercenary units from the Balkans recruited mainly by states of southern and central Europe from the 15th until the middle of the 18th century. The stradioti were recruited in Albania, Greece, Dalmatia, Serbia and later Cyprus. Most modern historians have indicated that the Stratioti were mostly Albanians. According to a study by a Greek author, around 80% of the listed names attributed to the stradioti were of Albanian origin while most of the remaining ones, especially those of officers, were of Greek origin; a small minority were of South Slavic origin. Among their leaders there were also members of some old Byzantine Greek noble families such as the Palaiologoi and Comneni. The stratioti were pioneers of light cavalry tactics during this era. In the early 16th century heavy cavalry in the European armies was principally remodeled after Albanian stradioti of the Venetian army, Hungarian hussars and German mercenary cavalry units (Schwarzreitern). They employed hit-and-run tactics, ambushes, feigned retreats and other complex maneuvers. In some ways, these tactics echoed those of the Ottoman sipahis and akinci. They had some notable successes also against French heavy cavalry during the Italian Wars.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Mercenary

Among their leaders there were also members of some old Byzantine Greek noble families such as the Palaiologoi and Comneni. The stratioti were pioneers of light cavalry tactics during this era. In the early 16th century heavy cavalry in the European armies was principally remodeled after Albanian stradioti of the Venetian army, Hungarian hussars and German mercenary cavalry units (Schwarzreitern). They employed hit-and-run tactics, ambushes, feigned retreats and other complex maneuvers. In some ways, these tactics echoed those of the Ottoman sipahis and akinci. They had some notable successes also against French heavy cavalry during the Italian Wars. They were known for cutting off the heads of dead or captured enemies, and according to Commines they were paid by their leaders one ducat per head. In Italy, during inter-family conflicts such as the Wars of Castro, mercenaries were widely used to supplement the much smaller forces loyal to particular families. Often these were further supplemented by troops loyal to particular duchies which had sided with one or more of the belligerents. 17th and 18th centuries: During the 17th and 18th centuries, extensive use was made of foreign recruits in the now regimented and highly drilled armies of Europe, beginning in a systematized way with the Thirty Years' War. Historian Geoffrey Parker notes that 40,000 Scotsmen (about fifteen percent of the adult male population) served as soldiers in Continental Europe from 1618 to 1640. After the signing of the Treaty of Limerick (1691) the soldiers of the Irish Army who left Ireland for France took part in what is known as the Flight of the Wild Geese. Subsequently, many made a living from fighting in continental armies, the most famous of whom was Patrick Sarsfield, who, having fallen mortally wounded at the Battle of Landen fighting for the French, said "If this was only for Ireland". The brutality of the Thirty Years' War, in which several parts of Germany were ransacked by the mercenary troops, and left almost unpopulated, led to the formation of standing armies of professional soldiers, recruited locally or abroad. These armies were active also in peacetime. The formation of these armies in the late 18th century led to professionalization and standardization of clothing (uniforms), equipment, drill, weapons, etc. Since smaller states like the Dutch Republic could afford a large standing army, but could not find enough recruits among its own citizens, recruiting foreigners was common. Prussia had developed a form of conscription, but relied in wartime also on foreign recruits, although the regulations stated that no more than one third of the recruits were to be foreign. Prussian recruiting methods were often aggressive, and resulted more than once in conflicts with neighbouring states. The term mercenary gained its notoriety during this development, since mercenaries were—and now are—often seen as soldiers who fight for no noble cause, but only for money, and who have no loyalty than to the highest bidder, as opposed to the professional soldiers who takes an oath of loyalty and who is seen as the defender of the nation. The mercenary soldiers thus fell out of favour and was replaced by the professional soldier. To augment the army, major European powers like France, Britain, the Dutch Republic and Spain contracted regiments from Switzerland, the Southern Netherlands (modern day Belgium), and several smaller German states. About a third of the infantry regiments of the French Royal Army prior to the French Revolution were recruited from outside France. The largest single group were the twelve Swiss regiments (including the Swiss Guard). Other units were German and one Irish Brigade (the "Wild Geese") had originally been made up of Irish volunteers. By 1789 difficulties in obtaining genuinely Irish recruits had led to German and other foreigners making up the bulk of the rank and file. The officers however continued to be drawn from long established Franco-Irish families. During the reign of Louis XV there was also a Scottish (Garde Écossaise), a Swedish (Royal-Suédois), an Italian (Royal-Italien) and a Walloon (Horion-Liegeois) regiment recruited outside the borders of France. The foreign infantry regiments comprised about 20,000 men in 1733, rising to 48,000 at the time of the Seven Years' War and being reduced in numbers thereafter. The Dutch Republic had contracted several Scots, Swiss and German regiments in the early 18th century, and kept three Scots, one Walloon, and six Swiss regiments (including a Guard regiment raised in 1749) throughout the 18th century. The Scots regiments were contracted from Great Britain, but as relations between Britain and the Republic deteriorated, the regiments could no longer recruit in Scotland, leading to the regiments being Scots in name only until they were nationalized in 1784. Patrick Gordon, a Scottish mercenary fought at various times for Poland and Sweden, constantly changing his loyalty based on who could pay him the best, until he took up Russian service in 1661. In August 1689, during a coup d'état attempt in Moscow against co-tsar Peter the Great led by the Sophia Alekseyevna in the name of the other co-tsar, the intellectually disabled Ivan V, Gordon played the decisive role in defeating the coup and ensuring Peter's triumph. Gordon remained one of Peter's favorite advisers until his death. The Spanish Army also made use of permanently established foreign regiments. These were three Irish regiments (Irlanda, Hiberni and Ultonia); one Italian (Naples) and five Swiss (Wimpssen, Reding, Betschart, Traxer and Preux). In addition one regiment of the Royal Guard including Irishmen as Patten, McDonnell and Neiven, was recruited from Walloons. The last of these foreign regiments was disbanded in 1815, following recruiting difficulties during the Napoleonic Wars. One complication arising from the use of non-national troops occurred at the Battle of Bailén in 1808 when the "red Swiss" (so-called from their uniforms) of the invading French Army clashed bloodily with "blue Swiss" in the Spanish service. During the American Revolutionary War, the British government hired several regiments from German principalities to supplement the Army. They became known to revolutionaries as Hessians and were portrayed by propagandists as mercenaries. However, they were auxiliaries and do not meet the definition of mercenary. 19th–21st centuries: During the South American wars of independence from Spain, the British Legions from 1817 onward fought for General Simón Bolívar. Some of the British Legionaries were liberal idealists who went to South America to fight in a war for freedom, but others were the more classic mercenaries, mostly unemployed veterans of the Napoleonic wars, who fought for money. In South America, especially in Colombia, the men of the British Legions are remembered as heroes for their crucial role in helping end Spanish rule. During the First Carlist War, the British government suspended the Foreign Enlistment Act to allow the recruitment of a quasi-official British Auxiliary Legion under George de Lacy Evans, which went to Spain to fight for Queen Isabel II against the followers of Don Carlos, the pretender to the Spanish throne. The Atholl Highlanders, a private Scottish infantry regiment of the Duke of Atholl, was formed in 1839 purely for ceremonial purposes. It was granted official regimental status by Queen Victoria in 1845 and is the only remaining legal private army in Europe. Turkey and Azerbaijan have deployed Syrian mercenaries during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. Syrian mercenaries are being deployed by Russia, with expected numbers ranging from hundreds to up to 40,000 fighters ultimately expected to take part. Wagner mercenaries are active in the Syrian civil war and sledgehammered a Syrian man to death. Mozart Group is also active in Ukraine. East Asia: Warring States: Mercenaries were regularly used by the kingdoms of the Warring States period of China. Military advisers and generals trained through the works of Mozi and Sun Tzu would regularly offer their services to kings and dukes. After the Qin conquest of the Warring States, the Qin and later Han Empires would also employ mercenaries – ranging from nomadic horse archers in the Northern steppes or soldiers from the Yue kingdoms of the South. The 7th-century Tang dynasty was also prominent for its use of mercenaries, when they hired Tibetan and Uyghur soldiers against invasion from the Göktürks and other steppe civilizations. 15th to 18th centuries: The Saika mercenary group of the Kii Province, Japan, played a significant role during the Siege of Ishiyama Hongan-ji that took place between August 1570 to August 1580. The Saikashuu were famed for the support of Ikkō Buddhist sect movements and greatly impeded the advance of Oda Nobunaga's forces. Ninja were peasant farmers who learned the art of war to combat the daimyō's samurai. They were hired out by many as mercenaries to perform capture, infiltration and retrieval, and, most famously, assassinations. Ninja possibly originated around the 14th century, but were not widely known or used till the 15th century and carried on being hired till the mid 18th century.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Mercenary

15th to 18th centuries: The Saika mercenary group of the Kii Province, Japan, played a significant role during the Siege of Ishiyama Hongan-ji that took place between August 1570 to August 1580. The Saikashuu were famed for the support of Ikkō Buddhist sect movements and greatly impeded the advance of Oda Nobunaga's forces. Ninja were peasant farmers who learned the art of war to combat the daimyō's samurai. They were hired out by many as mercenaries to perform capture, infiltration and retrieval, and, most famously, assassinations. Ninja possibly originated around the 14th century, but were not widely known or used till the 15th century and carried on being hired till the mid 18th century. In the 16th-17th centuries, the Spanish in the Philippines employed samurai mercenaries from Japan to help control the archipelago. Abroad the wreck of one Spanish galleon, the San Diego, that sunk in Filipino waters on 14 December 1600 were found numerous tsubas, the handguards of the katanas, the distinctive swords used by the samurai. In 1615, the Dutch invaded Ai Island with Japanese mercenaries. 19th century: Between 1850 and 1864, the Taiping Rebellion raged as the Taiping (Heavenly Peace) Army led by Hong Xiuquan, the self-proclaimed younger brother of Jesus Christ, engaged in a bloody civil war against the forces loyal to the Qing emperor. As Hong and his followers, who numbered in the millions, were hostile to Western business interests, a group of Western merchants based in Shanghai created a mercenary army known as the Ever Victorious Army. During the Taiping Rebellion, the Qing came close to losing control of China. It was common for the financially hard-pressed Qing emperors to subcontract out the business of raising armies to fight the Taiping to the loyalist provincial gentry, which formed the origins of the warlords who were to dominate China after the overthrow of the Qing in 1912. The rank and file of the Ever-Victorious Army were Chinese, but the senior officers were Westerners. The first commander was an American adventurer, Colonel Frederick Townsend Ward. After Ward was killed in action in 1862, command was assumed by another American adventurer, Henry Andres Burgevine, but the Chinese disliked him on the account of his racism and his alcoholism. Burgevine was replaced with a British Army officer seconded to Chinese service, Colonel Charles "Chinese" Gordon. A highly successful commander, Gordon won thirty-three battles in succession against the Taipings in 1863–1864 as he led the Ever Victorious Army down the Yangtze river valley and played a decisive role in defeating the Taipings. Through technically not a mercenary as Gordon had been assigned by the British government to lead the Ever Victorious Army, the Times of London in a leader (editorial) in August 1864 declared: "the part of the soldier of fortune is in these days very difficult to play with honour...but if ever the actions of a soldier fighting in foreign service ought to be viewed with indulgence, and even with admiration, this exceptional tribute is due to Colonel Gordon". During the French conquest of Vietnam, their most persistent and stubborn opponents were not the Vietnamese, but rather the Chinese mercenaries of the Black Flag Army commanded by Liu Yongfu, who been hired by the Emperor Tự Đức. In 1873, the Black Flags killed the French commander, Francis Garnier, attracting much attention in France. In 1883, Captain Henri Rivière, leading another French expedition into Vietnam was also killed by the Black Flags. When the French conquest of Vietnam was finally completed in 1885, one of the peace terms were the disbandment of the Black Flag Army. Chinese flag rebels also fought in the Haw wars in Laos and northern Thailand. Philo McGiffin served as a naval mercenary in the Sino-French War and First Sino-Japanese War. 20th century: In the Warlord Era of China, some British mercenaries like Morris "Two Gun" Cohen, and Francis Arthur "One Armed" Sutton found employ in China. Easily the largest group of mercenaries in China were the Russian emigres who arrived after 1917 and who hired themselves out to various Chinese warlords in the 1920s. Unlike the Anglo-American mercenaries, the Russians had no home to return to nor were any foreign nations willing to accept them as refugees, causing them to have a grim, fatalistic outlook as they were trapped in what they regarded as a strange land that was as far from home as imaginable. One group of Russians wore Tartar hats and the traditional dark greycoats, and fought for Marshal Zhang Zuolin, the "Old Marshal" who ruled Manchuria. White Russian mercenaries claimed that they had considerable effectiveness against ill-trained armies of the Chinese warlords; one White Russian claimed that when he and other Russians serving Marshal Zhang they "went through the Chinese troops like a knife through butter". Chinese forces slaughtered most of a 350 strong White Russian forces in June 1921 under Colonel Kazagrandi in the Gobi desert, with only two batches of 42 men and 35 men surrendering separately as Chinese were wiping out White Russian remnants following the Soviet Red army defeat of Ungern Sternberg, and other Buryat and White Russian remnants of Ungern-Sternberg's army were massacred by Soviet Red Army and Mongol forces. One group of Russian mercenaries led by General Konstantin Petrovich Nechaev were dressed in the uniform of Imperial Russian Army and fought for General Zhang Zongchang, the "Dogmeat General" who ruled Shangdong province. Zhang Zongchang had Russian women as concubines. Nechaev and his men were infamous for their ruthlessness, and on one occasion in 1926, rode three armored trains through the Chinese countryside, killing everybody they met. When the Chinese peasants tore up the rails to stop Nechaev's rampage, he and his men vented their fury by sacking in an especially brutal manner the nearest town. Nechaev suffered a huge defeat at the hands of Chinese, when he and one armoured train under his command were trapped near Suichzhou in 1925. Their Chinese adversaries had pulled up the rail, and took this opportunity to massacre almost all Russian mercenaries on board the train. Nechaev managed to survive this incident, but lost a part of his leg during the bitter fighting. In 1926 Chinese warlord Sun Chuanfang inflicted bloody death tolls upon the White Russian mercenaries under Nechaev's brigade in the 65th division serving Zhang Zongchang, reducing the Russian numbers from 3,000 to only a few hundred by 1927 and the remaining Russian survivors fought in armored trains. During the Northern Expedition Chinese Nationalist forces captured an armoured train of Russian mercenaries serving Zhang Zongchang and brutalized the Russian prisoners by piercing their noses with rope and marching them in public through the streets in Shandong in 1928, described as "stout rope pierced through their noses". Alcoholic White Russian mercenaries defeated Muslim Uyghurs in melee fighting when Uyghurs tried to take Urumqi on 21 February 1933 in the Battle of Ürümqi (1933). Wu Aitchen mentioned that 600 Uyghurs were slaughtered in a battle by White Russian mercenaries in the service of the Xinjiang clique warlord Jin Shuren. Jin Shuren would take Russian women as hostages to force their husbands to serve as his mercenaries. Hui Muslims fought brutal battles against White Russians and Soviet Red Army Russians at the Battle of Tutung and Battle of Dawan Cheng inflicting heavy losses on the Russian forces. Chinese forces killed many White Russian soldiers and Soviet soldiers in 1944-1946 when the White Russians of Ili and Soviet Red Army served in the Second East Turkestan Republic Ili national army during the Ili Rebellion. During the early stages of the Second Sino-Japanese War, a number of foreign pilots served in the Chinese Air Force, most famously in the 14th Squadron, a light bombardment unit often called the International Squadron, which was briefly active in February and March 1938. India: 18th to 19th centuries: In the medieval period, Purbiya mercenaries from Bihar and Eastern Uttar Pradesh were a common feature in kingdoms in western and northern India. They were also later recruited by the Marathas and the British. In southern India, there is a caste/community of mercenaries in the state of Karnataka which is called Bunt. The word "bunt" itself translates to warrior or mercenary, this community later elevated itself as the rulers of the land, several powerful dynasties emerged from this community. The most notable dynasty being the Alupas of Dakshina Kannada, which reigned for 1,300 years. This community still survives and has adopted the surnames shetty, Rai, Alva, chowta etc. In Tamil Nadu, the three crowned empires used the Kongar pastro-peasantry tribes of the Kongunad region and the Kongar peasant tribes of the Erumainad region as their swordsman mercenaries, cavalry mercenaries, and as chariot soldier mercenaries, as well as personal guards. Kongars worked along with the three empires' warrior tribes such as the Kallar, Maravar, Aghamudaiyar, Parkavar, Valaiya-Mutharaiyar, and Mazhavar tribes.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Mercenary

The word "bunt" itself translates to warrior or mercenary, this community later elevated itself as the rulers of the land, several powerful dynasties emerged from this community. The most notable dynasty being the Alupas of Dakshina Kannada, which reigned for 1,300 years. This community still survives and has adopted the surnames shetty, Rai, Alva, chowta etc. In Tamil Nadu, the three crowned empires used the Kongar pastro-peasantry tribes of the Kongunad region and the Kongar peasant tribes of the Erumainad region as their swordsman mercenaries, cavalry mercenaries, and as chariot soldier mercenaries, as well as personal guards. Kongars worked along with the three empires' warrior tribes such as the Kallar, Maravar, Aghamudaiyar, Parkavar, Valaiya-Mutharaiyar, and Mazhavar tribes. During that time, these Kongar tribes were led only by the chiefs of their own tribe and would not come under the command of the emperor or his military general. Though these Kongar tribes of Kongunad were feudatories to the three crowned empires, Kongunad was divided into 24 subdivisions and was only ruled by Kongars. However, the Kongars (Gangars) of Erumainad established their own empire, the Western Ganga dynasty, and ruled over it for centuries. Kongar tribes still exist in the modern world, where they are referred as Kongu Vellala Gounder (Kongunadu) and Gangadhikar Vokkaliga Gowda (Erumainad). The Mukkuvar clan of Malabar Coast and Sri Lankan coast did the role of soldiers in Kalinga Magha's invasion to Sri Lanka and in Nair's battle with the Dutch in the Battle of Colachel. In the 18th and early 19th centuries, the imperial Mughal power was crumbling and other powers, including the Sikh Misls and Maratha chiefs, were emerging. At this time, a number of mercenaries, arriving from several countries found employment in India. Some of the mercenaries emerged to become independent rulers. The Sikh Maharaja, Ranjit Singh, known as the "Lion of the Punjab", employed Euro-American mercenaries such as the Neapolitan Paolo Avitabile; the Frenchmen Claude Auguste Court and Jean-François Allard; and the Americans Josiah Harlan and Alexander Gardner. The Sikh army, Dal Khalsa, was trained by Singh's French mercenaries to fight alone the lines used by the French in the Napoleonic era, and following French practice, Dal Khalsa had excellent artillery. Singh had a low opinion of his Euro-American mercenaries, once saying "German, French or English, all these European bastards are alike". Until 1858, India was a proprietary colony that belonged to the East India Company, not the British Crown. The East India Company became the world's most influential corporation, having exclusive monopolies on trade with India and China. By the early 19th century, the East India Company in its proprietary colony of India ruled over 90 million Indians and controlled 70 million acres (280,000 km2) of land under its own flag, issued its own currency and maintained its own civil service and its own army of 200,000 men led by officers trained at its officer school, giving the company an army larger than that possessed by most European states. In the 17th century, the East India Company recruited Indian mercenaries to guard its warehouses and police the cities under its rule. However, these forces were ad hoc and disbanded as quickly as they were recruited. Starting in 1746, the Company recruited Indian mercenaries into its own army. By 1765, the board of directors of the Company had come to accept it was necessary to rule its conquests to maintain a standing army, voting to maintain three presidency armies to be funded by taxes on Indian land. The number of Indians working for the Company's armies outnumbered the Europeans ten to one. When recruiting, the East India Company tended to follow Indian prejudices in believing the pale-skinned men from northern India made for better soldiers than the dark-skinned peoples of southern India, and that high-caste Hindus were superior to the low-caste Hindus. Despite these prejudices, the men of the Madras Army were from south India. The Bengal Army were largely high-cast Hindus from northern India while the Bombay Army prided itself on being a "melting pot". Because the East India Company ultimately by the end of the 18th century came to offer higher pay than the Maharajahs did, and offered the novelty in India of paying a pension to veterans and their families, it came to attract the best of the Indian mercenaries. Initially, the mercenaries serving in the company's armies brought along their own weapons, which was the normal practice in India, but after the 1760s the company began to them arm with the standard British weapons. The East India Company, generally known in both Britain and in India as "the Company", had sufficient lobbying power in London to ensure that several British Army regiments were also stationed to work alongside the Company army, whose troops were mostly "Sepoys" (Indians). The Company never entirely trusted the loyalty of its sepoys. The company had its own officer training school at the Addiscombe Military Seminary. The company's armies were trained in the Western style and by the end of the 18th century its troops were ranked as the equal of any European army. Latin America: Nicaragua: In 1855, during a civil war in Nicaragua between the Conservatives and Liberals, the latter recruited an American adventurer named William Walker who promised to bring 300 mercenaries to fight for the Liberals. Through Walker only brought 60 mercenaries with him, to be joined by another 100 Americans together with the Belgian mercenary Charles Frederick Henningsen who were already in Nicaragua, he was able to defeat the Conservatives at the Battle of La Virgen on 4 September 1855 and by 13 October, Walker had taken Grenada, the Conservative capital. After his victories, Walker became the de facto dictator of Nicaragua, which many both inside and outside of the country soon started to call "Walkeragua". At the time, Nicaragua was an extremely important transit point between the Western and Eastern United States. In the days before the Panama Canal and the first transcontinental railroad, ships from the Eastern United States would sail up the San Juan River to Lake Nicaragua, where passengers and goods were unloaded at the port of Rivas and then made the short journey via stagecoach to the Pacific coast, to be loaded onto ships that would take them to the west coast of the United States. One of the most important companies of the Nicaraguan stagecoach business was the Accessory Transit Company owned by Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt of New York. Walker confiscated the Accessory Transit Company's assets in Nicaragua, which he handed over to the Morgan & Garrison company, owned by rivals of Vanderbilt. As Vanderbilt happened to be the richest man in the United States, he launched a lobbying campaign against Walker in Washington, D.C., and was able to pressure President Franklin Pierce into withdrawing American recognition of Walker's regime. Once it was understood that the US government was no longer supporting Walker, Costa Rica invaded Nicaragua with the aim of deposing Walker, whose ambitions were felt to be a threat to all of Central America. The Costa Ricans defeated Walker at the Battle of Santa Rosa and the Second Battle of Rivas. The beleaguered Walker sought to appeal to support in his native South by restoring slavery in Nicaragua, making English the official language, changing the immigration law to favor Americans, and declaring his ultimate intention was to bring Nicaragua into the United States as a slave state. By this point, Walker had thoroughly alienated public opinion in Nicaragua while he was besieged in Grenada by a coalition of Guatemalan, Salvadorian, and Costa Rican troops. The decision by Henningsen to burn down Grenada enraged Nicaraguan people and in March 1857, Walker, with his dreams of an empire in tatters, fled Nicaragua. In the 1980s, one of the Reagan administration's foreign policy was to overthrow the left-wing Sandinista government by arming guerrillas known as the Contras. Between 1982 and 1984, Congress passed the three Boland amendments which limited the extent of American aid to the Contra rebels. By the late 1970s, the popularity of magazines such as Soldier of Fortune, which glorified the mercenary subculture, led to the opening of numerous camps in the United States designed to train men to be mercenaries and also to serve as guerrillas in case of a Soviet conquest of the United States. The vast majority of the men who trained in these camps were white men who saw para-military training as a "reverse the previous twenty years of American history and take back all the symbolic territory that has been lost" as the possibility of becoming mercenaries gave them "the fantastic possibility of escaping their present lives, being reborn as warrior and remaking the world". Owing to the legal problems posed by the Boland amendments, the Reagan administration turned to the self-proclaimed mercenaries to arm and train the Contra guerrillas. In 1984, the CIA created the Civilian Military Assistance (CMA) group to aid the Contras. The CMA were led by a white supremacist from Alabama named Tom Posey, who like all of the other members of the CMA were graduates of the mercenary training camps.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Mercenary

The vast majority of the men who trained in these camps were white men who saw para-military training as a "reverse the previous twenty years of American history and take back all the symbolic territory that has been lost" as the possibility of becoming mercenaries gave them "the fantastic possibility of escaping their present lives, being reborn as warrior and remaking the world". Owing to the legal problems posed by the Boland amendments, the Reagan administration turned to the self-proclaimed mercenaries to arm and train the Contra guerrillas. In 1984, the CIA created the Civilian Military Assistance (CMA) group to aid the Contras. The CMA were led by a white supremacist from Alabama named Tom Posey, who like all of the other members of the CMA were graduates of the mercenary training camps. John Negroponte, the American ambassador to Honduras, arranged for permission to be given for the CMA to operate from Honduran territory. However, the operation collapsed later in 1984 when the Nicaraguans shot down a CMA plane carrying arms to the Contras, killing two Americans. Sam Hall, a self proclaimed mercenary hero and "counter-terrorist" who joined the CMA entered Nicaragua with the aim of performing sabotage operations. In 1986, Hall was captured by the Sandinistas, who held him for four months before releasing him under the grounds that he was not a mercenary, but rather a mercenary imposer. John K. Singlaub who worked alongside Hall described him as suffering from a "Walter Mitty type complex". Colombia: In 1994, President César Gaviria of Colombia signed Decree 356, which allowed wealthy landowners to recruit private armies of their own and liberalised the law on settling up PMCs in order to fight the Communist FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) guerrillas. As a result of Decree 356, by 2014 Colombia had 740 PMCs operating, more than anywhere else in the world. Increasingly Colombian mercenaries have been hired by American PMCs as being cheaper than American mercenaries. The government of the United Arab Emirates has hired Colombian mercenaries to fight its war in Yemen. Africa: Ancient Africa: An early recorded use of foreign auxiliaries dates back to ancient Egypt, the thirteenth century BC, when Pharaoh Ramesses II used 11,000 mercenaries during his battles. A long established foreign corps in the Egyptian forces were the Medjay—a generic term given to tribal scouts and light infantry recruited from Nubia serving from the late period of the Old Kingdom through that of the New Kingdom. Other warriors recruited from outside the borders of Egypt included Libyan, Syrian and Canaanite contingents under the New Kingdom and Sherdens from Sardinia who appear in their distinctive horned helmets on wall paintings as body guards for Ramesses II. Celtic mercenaries were greatly employed in the Greek world (leading to the sack of Delphi and the Celtic settlement of Galatia). The Greek rulers of Ptolemaic Egypt, too, used Celtic mercenaries. Carthage was unique for relying primarily on mercenaries to fight its wars, particularly Gaul and Spanish mercenaries. 19th and 20th centuries: In the 20th century, mercenaries in conflicts on the continent of Africa have in several cases brought about a swift end to bloody civil war by comprehensively defeating the rebel forces. There have been a number of unsavory incidents in the brushfire wars of Africa, some involving recruitment of European and American men "looking for adventure". Many of the adventurers in Africa who have been described as mercenaries were in fact ideologically motivated to support particular governments, and would not fight "for the highest bidder". An example of this was the British South Africa Police (BSAP), a paramilitary, mounted infantry force formed by the British South Africa Company of Cecil Rhodes in 1889–1890 that evolved and continued until 1980. Famous mercenaries in Africa include: Frederick Russell Burnham was an American scout for the British South Africa Company who served in both the First Matabele War (1893–94) and the Second Matabele War (1896–97). He effectively ended the Second Matabele War by assassinating the Ndebele religious leader, Mlimo, but Burnham is best known in this war for teaching American Frontier scouting to Robert Baden-Powell and inspiring him to found the boy scouts. In the Second Boer War (1900–1904), Burnham served as Chief of Scouts to the British Army. He was presented the Cross of the Distinguished Service Order for his heroism and given a commission as Major in the British Army by King Edward VII personally even though he declined to renounce his American citizenship. Burnham's real-life adventures also heavily influenced H. Rider Haggard who created the fictional Allan Quatermain adventurer, a character who later was transformed by George Lucas into Indiana Jones. Mike Hoare was a British career soldier who served with distinction in the London Irish Rifles during World War II. He later emigrated to South Africa, and was contracted by the State of Katanga in the early 1960s to form "4 Commando (Force Katangaise)", a unit of foreign military advisers in the local gendarmerie. Most of Hoare's recruits were Belgians or South Africans. After Katanga's integration in 1963, Hoare remained active in Congo affairs. He was solicited by General Joseph-Desiré Mobutu in 1964 to form "5 Commando" – a second mercenary force raised to crush the Simba Rebellion, which included European adventurers of at least twenty nationalities. Hoare later resurfaced in 1981, shortly after France-Albert René's ascension in the Seychelles, attempting to carry out a coup d'état on behalf of former president James Mancham. His troops were intercepted shortly after debarking on Mahé and only escaped by hijacking an Air India Boeing, which they flew to Durban. Bob Denard was a former French intelligence operative, policeman, and dedicated anti-communist who saw action during the First Indochina War and Algerian War of Independence. After a brief inroad into civilian life, Denard returned to military service with the Katangese gendarmerie in 1961. Refusing to surrender when secessionist forces collapsed in January 1963, he disappeared into Angola with a nucleus of other die-hards and sought work training North Yemen royalists before returning to the Congo at the request of then-Prime Minister Moise Tshombe. Denard formed his own unit to fight the Simba Rebellion, les affreux, who were also instrumental in suppressing an attempted coup d'état in 1966. Dismissed by Congolese president Joseph Kasa Vubu, the French mercenary joined the Kisangani Mutinies and was wounded in action. He later went on to serve as a military adviser to several African governments, including Gabon and Rhodesia. Denard has since carried out five attempted coup d'etats in Benin and the Comoros Islands, three of them successful. Neall Ellis was a South African aviator who achieved prominence for his extensive action in Sierra Leone's long-running civil war. Ellis was raised in Bulawayo, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), but after an unsuccessful career in the Rhodesian Army, emigrated to join the South African Air Force. During the South African Border War, he flew improvised Aérospatiale Alouette III and Atlas Oryx gunships over Angola and Mozambique in support of South African expeditionary forces conducting external raids. He retired a colonel upon the end of apartheid, piloting Yugoslav Mil Mi-8s as an operational freelancer. In 1998, Ellis returned to participate in the Angolan Civil War with private military firm Executive Outcomes, which eventually dispatched him to Sierra Leone. During the Battle for Freetown, he was instrumental in fighting off Revolutionary United Front insurgents from a Mil Mi-24 Hind and providing air support for British forces executing Operation Barras. He has founded his own paramilitary company, Jesa Air West Africa, and continues to fly helicopters for Iraq and Somalia. Simon Mann was found guilty in Zimbabwe of "attempting to buy weapons" (BBC 27 August) allegedly for a coup in Equatorial Guinea in 2004 (see below). Congo Crisis: The Congo Crisis (1960–1965) was a period of turmoil in the First Republic of the Congo that began with national independence from Belgium and ended with the seizing of power by Joseph Mobutu. During the crisis, mercenaries were employed by various factions, and also at times helped the United Nations and other peace keepers. In 1960 and 1961, Mike Hoare worked as a mercenary commanding an English-speaking unit called "4 Commando" supporting a faction in Katanga, a province trying to break away from the newly independent Congo under the leadership of Moïse Tshombe. Hoare chronicled his exploits in his book the Road to Kalamata. In 1964, Tshombe (then Prime Minister of Congo) hired Major Hoare to lead a military unit called "5 Commando" made up of about 300 men, most of whom were from South Africa. The unit's mission was to fight a rebel group called Simbas, who already had captured almost two-thirds of the country.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Mercenary

During the crisis, mercenaries were employed by various factions, and also at times helped the United Nations and other peace keepers. In 1960 and 1961, Mike Hoare worked as a mercenary commanding an English-speaking unit called "4 Commando" supporting a faction in Katanga, a province trying to break away from the newly independent Congo under the leadership of Moïse Tshombe. Hoare chronicled his exploits in his book the Road to Kalamata. In 1964, Tshombe (then Prime Minister of Congo) hired Major Hoare to lead a military unit called "5 Commando" made up of about 300 men, most of whom were from South Africa. The unit's mission was to fight a rebel group called Simbas, who already had captured almost two-thirds of the country. In Operation Dragon Rouge, "5 Commando" worked in close cooperation with Belgian paratroopers, Cuban exile pilots, and CIA hired mercenaries. The objective of Operation Dragon Rouge was to capture Stanleyville and save several hundred civilians (mostly Europeans and missionaries) who were hostages of the Simba rebels. The operation saved many lives; however, the Operation damaged the reputation of Moïse Tshombe as it saw the return of white mercenaries to the Congo soon after independence and was a factor in Tshombe's loss of support from president of Congo Joseph Kasa-Vubu who dismissed him from his position At the same time Bob Denard commanded the French-speaking "6 Commando", "Black Jack" Schramme commanded "10 Commando" and William "Rip" Robertson commanded a company of anti-Castro Cuban exiles. Later, in 1966 and 1967, some former Tshombe mercenaries and Katangese gendarmes staged the Mercenaries' Mutinies. Biafra: Mercenaries fought for Biafra in the Fourth Commando Brigade led by Rolf Steiner during the Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970). Other mercenaries flew aircraft for the Biafrans. In October 1967, for example, a Royal Air Burundi DC-4M Argonaut, flown by mercenary Heinrich Wartski, also known as Henry Wharton, crash-landed in Cameroon with military supplies destined for Biafra. It was hoped that employing mercenaries in Nigeria would have similar impact to the Congo, but the mercenaries proved largely ineffective. The British historian Philip Baxter wrote the principle difference was that the Congolese militias commanded by leaders with almost no military experience were no match for the mercenaries, and by contrast the Sandhurst-trained Nigerian Army officers were of an "altogether higher caliber" than Congolese militia leaders. Through much of the leadership of the Nigerian Army had been killed in two coups in 1966, there were still just enough Sandhust graduates left in 1967 to hold the Nigerian Army together and provide enough of a modicum of military professionalism to defeat the mercenaries. By October 1967, most of the mercenaries who had been expecting easy victories like those won in the Congo had already left Biafra, complaining that the Nigerians were a much tougher opponent who were defeating them in battle. When asked about the impact of the white mercenaries, General Philip Effiong, the chief of the Biafran general staff replied: "They had not helped. It would have made no difference if not a single one of them came to work for the secessionist forces. Rolf Steiner stayed the longest. He was more of a bad influence than anything else. We were happy to get rid of him." One Biafran officer, Fola Oyewole, wrote about the sacking of Steiner in late 1968: "Steiner's departure from Biafra removed the shine from the white mercenaries, the myth of the white man's superiority in the art of soldering". Oyewole wrote that the white mercenaries were hated by the ordinary people of Biafra due to their high-handed behavior; a tendency to retreat when it appeared possible the Nigerians were about to cut them off instead of holding their ground; and a fondness for looting, noting that the European mercenaries seemed more interested in stealing as much as possible instead of helping Biafra." In May 1969, Count Carl Gustaf von Rosen formed a squadron of five light aircraft known as the Babies of Biafra, which attacked and destroyed Nigerian jet aircraft on the ground and delivered food aid. Count von Rosen was assisted by ex-RCAF fighter pilot Lynn Garrison. Angola: In 1975, John Banks, an Englishman, recruited mercenaries to fight for the National Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA) against the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) in the civil war that broke out when Angola gained independence from Portugal in 1975. In the United States, David Bufkin, a self-proclaimed mercenary hero started a recruiting campaign in Soldier of Fortune magazine calling for anti-Communist volunteers, especially Vietnam veterans, to fight in Angola as mercenaries, claiming to be funded to the tune of $80,000 by the Central Intelligence Agency. Bufkin was in fact a former U.S. Army soldier "who has gone AWOL several times, has been tried for rape, and been in and out of jail several times", did not have $80,000, was not supported by the CIA, instead being a con-man who had stolen most of the money paid to him. Bufkin managed to get a dozen or so American mercenaries to Angola, where several of them were killed in action with the rest being captured. One of the leaders of the mercenaries was Costas Georgiou (the self-styled "Colonel Callan"), who was described by the British journalist Patrick Brogan as a psychopathic killer who personally executed fourteen of his fellow mercenaries for cowardice, and who was extremely brutal to black people. Within 48 hours of his arrival in Angola, Georgiou had already led his men in disarming and massacring a group of FNLA fighters (his supposed allies), who he killed just for the "fun" of it all. At his trial, it was established that Georgiou had personally murdered at least 170 Angolans. Inept as a military leader as he was brutal, Georgiou notably failed as a commander. It was believed in 1975–76 that recruiting white mercenaries to fight in Angola would have a similar impact that the mercenaries had in the Congo in the 1960s, but in Angola the mercenaries failed completely as Brogan described their efforts as a "debacle". If anything, the white mercanaries with their disdain for blacks, or in the case of Georgiou murderous hatred seemed to have depressed morale on the FNLA side. Many of the mercenaries in Angola were not former professional soldiers as they claimed to have been, but instead merely fantasists who had invented heroic war records for themselves. The fantasist mercenaries did not know how to use their weapons properly, and often injured themselves and others when they attempted to use weaponry that they did not fully understand, leading to some of them being executed by the psychopathic killer Georgiou who did not tolerate failure. On 27 January 1976, a group of 96 British mercenaries arrived in Angola and within a week about dozen had accidentally maimed themselves by trying to use weapons that they falsely claimed to be proficient with. The MLPA forces were better organized and led, and the dispatch of 35, 000 Cuban Army troops in November 1975 decided the war for the MLPA. Cuban accounts of the Angolan war speak of the efforts of the mercenaries in a tone of contempt as Cuban veterans contend that the mercenaries were poor soldiers who they had no trouble defeating. When captured, John Derek Barker's role as a leader of mercenaries in Northern Angola led the judges to send him to face the firing squad. Nine others were imprisoned. Three more were executed: American Daniel Gearhart was sentenced to death for advertising himself as a mercenary in an American newspaper; Andrew McKenzie and Costas Georgiou, who had both served in the British Army, were sentenced to death for murder. Georgiou was shot by firing squad in 1976. Costas' cousin Charlie Christodoulou was killed in an ambush. Executive Outcomes employees, Captains Daniele Zanata and Raif St Clair (who was also involved in the aborted Seychelles Coup of 1981), fought on behalf of the MPLA against the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) in the 1990s in violation of the Lusaka Protocol. The Comoros coup: A major aim of French foreign policy was and still is to maintain the French sphere of influence in what is called Françafrique. In 1975, Ali Soilih took power in the Comoros via a coup, and proved unwilling to accept the French viewpoint that his nation was part of Françafrique. Unhappy with Soilih, the French secret service, the Service de Documentation Extérieure et de Contre-Espionnage in 1978 hired the French mercenary Bob Denard to invade the Comoros to overthrow Soilih. Making the Comoros a tempting target for Denard were its small size, consisting of only three islands in the Indian Ocean. Moreover, Soilih had abolished the Comorian Army, replacing the Army with a militia known as the Moissy, made up mostly of teenage boys with only the most rudimentary military training.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Mercenary

The Comoros coup: A major aim of French foreign policy was and still is to maintain the French sphere of influence in what is called Françafrique. In 1975, Ali Soilih took power in the Comoros via a coup, and proved unwilling to accept the French viewpoint that his nation was part of Françafrique. Unhappy with Soilih, the French secret service, the Service de Documentation Extérieure et de Contre-Espionnage in 1978 hired the French mercenary Bob Denard to invade the Comoros to overthrow Soilih. Making the Comoros a tempting target for Denard were its small size, consisting of only three islands in the Indian Ocean. Moreover, Soilih had abolished the Comorian Army, replacing the Army with a militia known as the Moissy, made up mostly of teenage boys with only the most rudimentary military training. The Moissy, which was modeled after the Red Guard in China, existed mainly to terrorize Soilih's opponents and was commanded by a 15-year-old boy, appointed solely because of his blind devotion to Soilih. On the night of 13 May 1978, Denard and 42 other mercenaries landed on Grande Comore island, annihilated the poorly trained and badly commanded Moissy, none of whom had any military experience, and by the morning the Comoros was theirs. President Soilih was high on marijuana and naked in his bed together with three nude teenage schoolgirls watching a pornographic film, when Denard kicked in the door to his room to inform him that he was no longer president. Soilih was later taken out and shot with the official excuse being that he was "shot while trying to escape". The new president of the Comoros, Ahmed Abdallah, was a puppet leader and the real ruler of the Comoros was Colonel Denard, who brought the Comoros back into Françafrique. As a ruler, Denard proved himself to be extremely greedy as he rapaciously plundered the Comorian economy to make himself into a very rich man. Denard served as the commander of the Comorian Presidential Guard and became the largest single landowner in the Comoros, developing the best land by the sea into luxury resorts catering to tourists who wanted to enjoy the tropics. Denard converted to Islam (the prevailing religion in the Comoros), and took advantage of the Islamic rules on polygamy to maintain for himself a harem of Comorian women. Officially, France was committed to the United Nations sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa, which French and South African businesses circumvented via the Comoros, a form of sanctions-busting that was tolerated by Denard as long as he received his cut of the profits. Ultimately, Denard's antics as the "great white conqueror" of the Comoros and his lavish lifestyle made him into embarrassment for the French government, as there were charges that France was engaged in neo-colonialism in the Comoros. At the same time there were alternatives to Denard in the form of black Comorian politicians who wanted Denard out, but were willing to keep the Comoros in Françafrique, which would allowed Paris to achieve its aims without the embarrassment of a white European exploiting a country inhabited by black Africans. When Abdallah tried to dismiss Denard as commander of the Presidential Guard, Denard had him assassinated on 26 November 1989. At that point, the French government, which had an alternative leadership in place, intervened by sending paratroopers to remove Denard and the other mercenaries from the Comoros while installing Said Mohamed Djohar as president. On 28 September 1995, Denard again invaded the Comoros, but this time, Paris was against the invasion, and 600 paratroops were dispatched to the Comoros to usher Denard and his mercenaries out. Denard was charged in France with the murder of President Abdallah, but was acquitted owing to a lack of evidence. In 2006, he was found guilty of conspiracy to overthrow the government of the Comoros in 1995, but by this point Denard was suffering from Alzheimer's disease and he did not serve a day in prison, instead dying in a Paris hospital on 13 October 2007. The Seychelles invasion: In 1981, "Mad Mike" Hoare was hired by the government of South Africa to lead an invasion of the Seychelles with the aim of deposing the left-wing President France-Albert René, who had roundly criticized apartheid, and replacing him with a more apartheid-friendly leader. Disguised as a drinking club, Ye Ancient Order of Froth-Blowers, and as rugby players, Hoare led a force of 53 men into the airport at Port Larue on 25 November 1981. Hoare's men failed to make it past the customs at the airport as an alert customs officer noticed one of the "rugby players" had an AK-47 assault rifle hidden in his luggage. What followed was a shoot-out at the airport between Hoare's men and Seychellois customs officers. Realizing the invasion was doomed, Hoare and his men escaped by hijacking an Air India jet which flew them back to South Africa. The fiasco of the Seychelles invasion marked the beginning of the decline of the traditional soldier of fortune, centered around a charismatic figure like Hoare or Denard, and a change over to the corporatized private military company, run by men who shunned the limelight. Eritrea and Ethiopia: Both sides hired mercenaries in the Eritrean–Ethiopian War from 1998 to 2000. Russian mercenaries were believed to be flying in the air forces of both sides. Sierra Leone: American Robert C. MacKenzie was killed in the Malal Hills in February 1995, while commanding Gurkha Security Guards (GSG) in Sierra Leone. GSG pulled out soon afterwards and was replaced by Executive Outcomes. Both were employed by the Sierra Leone government as military advisers and to train the government soldiers. It has been alleged that the firms provided soldiers who took an active part in the fighting against the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). In 2000, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's (ABC-TV) international affairs program Foreign Correspondent broadcast a special report "Sierra Leone: Soldiers of Fortune", focusing on former 32BN and Recce members who operated in Sierra Leone while serving for SANDF. Officers like De Jesus Antonio, TT D Abreu Capt Ndume and Da Costa were the forefront because of their combat and language skills and also the exploits of South African pilot Neall Ellis and his MI-24 Hind gunship. The report also investigated the failures of the UN Peacekeeping Force, and the involvement of mercenaries and private military contractors in providing vital support to UN operations and British military Special Operations in Sierra Leone in 1999–2000. Equatorial Guinea: In August 2004 there was a plot, which later became known as the "Wonga Coup", to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea in Malabo. Currently eight South African apartheid-era soldiers, organised by Neves Matias (former Recce major and De Jesus Antonio former Captain in 2sai BN) with (the leader of whom is Nick du Toit) and five local men are in Black Beach prison on the island. They are accused of being an advanced guard for a coup to place Severo Moto in power. Six Armenian aircrew, also convicted of involvement in the plot, were released in 2004 after receiving a presidential pardon. CNN reported on 25 August, that: Defendant Nick du Toit said he was introduced to Thatcher in South Africa last year by Simon Mann, the leader of 70 men arrested in Zimbabwe in March suspected of being a group of mercenaries heading to Equatorial Guinea. It was planned, allegedly, by Simon Mann, a former SAS officer. On 27 August 2004 he was found guilty in Zimbabwe of purchasing arms, allegedly for use in the plot (he admitted trying to procure dangerous weapons, but said that they were to guard a diamond mine in DR Congo). It is alleged that there is a paper trail from him which implicates Sir Mark Thatcher, Lord Archer and Ely Calil (a Lebanese-British oil trader). The BBC reported in an article entitled "Q&A: Equatorial Guinea coup plot": The BBC's Newsnight television programme saw the financial records of Simon Mann's companies showing large payments to Nick du Toit and also some $2m coming in – though the source of this funding they say is largely untraceable. The BBC reported on 10 September 2004 that in Zimbabwe: [Simon Mann], the British leader of a group of 67 alleged mercenaries accused of plotting a coup in Equatorial Guinea has been sentenced to seven years in jail... The other passengers got 12 months in jail for breaking immigration laws while the two pilots got 16 months...The court also ordered the seizure of Mann's $3m Boeing 727 and $180,000 found on board. Libya: Muammar Gaddafi in Libya was alleged to have been using mercenary soldiers during the 2011 Libyan civil war, including Tuaregs from various nations in Africa. Many of them had been part of his Islamic Legion created in 1972. Reports say around 800 had been recruited from Niger, Mali, Algeria, Ghana and Burkina Faso. In addition, small numbers of Eastern European mercenaries have also turned up supporting the Gaddafi regime.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Mercenary

The BBC reported on 10 September 2004 that in Zimbabwe: [Simon Mann], the British leader of a group of 67 alleged mercenaries accused of plotting a coup in Equatorial Guinea has been sentenced to seven years in jail... The other passengers got 12 months in jail for breaking immigration laws while the two pilots got 16 months...The court also ordered the seizure of Mann's $3m Boeing 727 and $180,000 found on board. Libya: Muammar Gaddafi in Libya was alleged to have been using mercenary soldiers during the 2011 Libyan civil war, including Tuaregs from various nations in Africa. Many of them had been part of his Islamic Legion created in 1972. Reports say around 800 had been recruited from Niger, Mali, Algeria, Ghana and Burkina Faso. In addition, small numbers of Eastern European mercenaries have also turned up supporting the Gaddafi regime. Most sources have described these troops as professional Serbian veterans of the Yugoslav conflict, including snipers, pilots and helicopter experts. Certain observers, however, speculate that they may be from Poland or Belarus. The latter has denied the claims outright; the former is investigating them. Although the Serbian government has denied that any of their nationals are currently serving as mercenary soldiers in North Africa, five such men have been captured by anti-Gaddafi rebels in Tripoli and several others have also allegedly fought during the Second Battle of Benghazi. Most recently, a number of unidentified white South African mercenaries were hired to smuggle Gaddafi and his sons to exile in Niger. Their attempts were thwarted by NATO air activity shortly before the death of Libya's ousted strongman. Numerous reports have indicated that the team was still protecting Saif al-Islam Gaddafi shortly before his recent apprehension. Amnesty International has claimed that such allegations against Gaddafi and the Libyan state turned out to either be false or lacking any evidence. Human Rights Watch has indicated that while many foreign migrants were erroneously accused of fighting with Gaddafi, there were also genuine mercenaries from several nations who participated in the conflict. More recently in 2020 at least several hundred mercenaries from the Russian Wagner Group have been fighting on the side of the warlord, General Khalifa Haftar, whom the government of Russia supports. The Wagner Group mercenaries arrived in Libya in late 2019. The Wagner Group have excelled as snipers, and one result of their arrival was a rapid increase in the number of sniper deaths on the opposing side that holds Tripoli. In response, the government of Turkey has hired 2, 000 Syrian mercenaries to fight for the opposing faction that it is supporting in the Libyan civil war. Since 2019, Turkey deployed Syrian mercenaries in the Libya (See: Turkish military intervention in the Second Libyan Civil War). In July 2020 Al Arabiyah reported that Turkey sent Syrian, Tunisian, Egyptian and Sudanese mercenaries into Libya. A November 2020 report by human rights advocacy group Human Rights Watch claimed that approximately hundreds of Sudanese men were hired by an Emirati security firm Black Shield Security Services as security guards for malls and hotels in the UAE, but were subsequently tricked into fighting in the Libyan Civil War. Reportedly 390 men were recruited from Khartoum, out of which 12 spoke to HRW and told that they were made to live alongside Libyan fighters aligned with UAE-backed General Khalifa Haftar. The recruits were hired to safeguard the oil facilities controlled by the Haftar forces. Middle East: Egypt: By 1807, Muhammad Ali the Great, the Albanian tobacco merchant turned de facto independent Ottoman vali (governor) of Egypt had imported about 400 French mercenaries to train his army. After the end of the Napoleonic wars, Muhammad Ali recruited more mercenaries from all over Europe and the United States to train his army, through French and Italian veterans of the Napoleonic wars were much preferred and formed the largest two groups of mercenaries in Egypt. The most famous of Muhammad Ali's mercenaries was the Frenchman Joseph-Anthelme Sève who set up the first staff school in Egypt and served as the chief of staff to Ibrahim Pasha, the son of the vali and his favorite general. By the 1820s, Muhammad Ali's mercenaries had created a mass conscript army trained to fight in the Western style together with schools for training Egyptian officers and factories for manufacturing Western style weapons as the vali did not wish to be dependent upon imported arms. Muhammad Ali's grandson, Ismail the Magnificent, who ruled as the Khedive of Egypt between 1863 and 79 recruited mercenaries on large scale. After Napoleon III made an unfavorable arbitration ruling in 1869 about the share of royalties from the newly opened Suez canal, which cost Ismail 3, 000, 000 Egyptian pounds per year, Ismail came to distrust his French mercenaries, and began to look elsewhere. A number of Italian mercenaries such as Romolo Gessi, Gaetamo Casati, Andreanni Somani, and Giacomo Messedaglia played prominent roles in the Egyptian campaigns in the Sudan. Ismail also recruited British mercenaries such as Samuel Baker and the Swiss mercenaries such as Werner Munzinger. After 1869, Ismail recruited 48 American mercenaries to command his army. General Charles Pomeroy Stone, formerly of the United States Army, served as the chief of the Egyptian general staff between 1870 and 1883. Ismail's Americans went to Egypt largely because of the high pay he offered, through several were Confederate veterans who were barred from serving in post-1865 United States Army; the fact that the Americans in Egyptian service had fought on opposing sides in the Civil War was a source of recurring tension as the antagonism between North and South continued in Egypt. Syrian civil war: The Free Syrian Army claimed the Bashar al-Assad regime recruited mercenaries from Iran, Hezbollah militia, and the Iraqi Mahdi Army militia during the Syrian civil war. The Russian government had approved of the deployment in 2016 of the Wagner Group mercenaries to fight for the Syrian government. The Wagner Group is reported to have played an important role in helping to turn the tide of the Syrian civil war in favor of the government, which in 2015 appeared to be close to collapse. On 7 February 2018, the Wagner Group mercenaries were reported to have attacked an American base in Syria together with a pro-Assad militia in what is known as the Battle of Khasham. Turkey used Syrian mercenaries against the Kurds in Syria. Yemen civil war: Multiple mercenary groups, called Popular Committees, which consists of Yemeni tribes loyal to different factions, were formed by both the Hadi government as well as the Houthi Supreme Political Council in the Yemeni Civil War. Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen: During Operation Decisive Storm, multiple sources reported that Latin American military contractors from Academi headed by Erik Prince were hired by UAE Armed Forces to assist in the fight against Houthis. Notable mercenaries: Cyber mercenary: A cyber mercenary is a non-state actor that carries out cyber attacks for Nation states for hire. State actors can use the cyber mercenaries as a front to try and distance themselves from the attack with plausible deniability. See also: Filibuster (military) International Stability Operations Association Mercenaries in popular culture Mercenary Soldiers' Revolt in Brazil Mercenary War (c. 240 BC) – also called the Libyan War and the Truceless War Montreux Document Private defense agency Private intelligence agency Privateer Rōnin Security detail Military volunteer List of foreign volunteers Violent non-state actor References: Sources: Arrian (1976). de Sélincourt, Aubrey (ed.). Anabasis Alexandri (The Campaigns of Alexander). Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-044253-3. Bernales-Ballesteros, Enrique; UNHCHR: Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on use of mercenaries Bodin J; Les Suisses au Service de la France; Editions Albion Michael, 1988. ISBN 2226033343 Bryant, G. L. (January 2000). "Indigenous Mercenaries in the Service of European Imperialists: The Case of the Sepoys in the Early British Indian Army, 1750–1800". War in History. 7 (1). Chartrand, Rene; Louis XV's Army – Foreign Infantry; Osprey 1997. ISBN 185532623X Chartrand, Rene; Spanish Army of the Napoleonic Wars 1793–1808; Osprey 1998. ISBN 1855327635 Goldsworthy, Adrian (2006). The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265–146 BC. London: Phoenix. ISBN 978-0-304-36642-2. Milliard, Todd S.; Overcoming post-colonial myopia: A call to recognize and regulate private military companies Archived 1 December 2012 at the Wayback Machine(PDF), in Military Law Review Vol 173, June 2003. At the time of publication Major Milliard was a Judge Advocate in the United States Army Judge Advocate General's Corps Anthony Mockler, Storia dei mercenari: Da Senofonte all'Iraq. Odoya, 2012. ISBN 978-8862881531. Schuster, Carl Otis (2016). "Memnon and Mentor of Rhodes (ca.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Mercenary

ISBN 1855327635 Goldsworthy, Adrian (2006). The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265–146 BC. London: Phoenix. ISBN 978-0-304-36642-2. Milliard, Todd S.; Overcoming post-colonial myopia: A call to recognize and regulate private military companies Archived 1 December 2012 at the Wayback Machine(PDF), in Military Law Review Vol 173, June 2003. At the time of publication Major Milliard was a Judge Advocate in the United States Army Judge Advocate General's Corps Anthony Mockler, Storia dei mercenari: Da Senofonte all'Iraq. Odoya, 2012. ISBN 978-8862881531. Schuster, Carl Otis (2016). "Memnon and Mentor of Rhodes (ca. 380–333, ca. 385–340)". In Phang, Sara E.; Spence, Iain; Kelly, Douglas; Londey, Peter (eds.). Conflict in Ancient Greece and Rome: The Definitive Political, Social, and Military Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1610690201. Further reading: Historical: Atwood, Rodney. The Hessians: Mercenaries from Hessen-Kassel in the American Revolution (Cambridge University Press, 1980). Avant, Deborah. "From mercenary to citizen armies: Explaining change in the practice of war." International Organization (2000): 41–72. online Fetter, Frank Whitson. “Who Were the Foreign Mercenaries of the Declaration of Independence?” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 104, no. 4, 1980, pp. 508–513. online Ingrao, Charles. "" Barbarous Strangers": Hessian State and Society during the American Revolution." American Historical Review 87.4 (1982): 954–976 online Ingrao, Charles W. The Hessian mercenary state: ideas, institutions, and reform under Frederick II, 1760–1785 (Cambridge University Press, 2003). Niccolò Machiavelli. The Prince. 1532. Ch. 12. "Military science in western Europe in the sixteenth century." Prologue: The nature of armies in the 16th century Mockler, Anthony. The Mercenaries: The Men Who Fight for Profit – from the Free Companies of Feudal France to the White Adventurers in the Congo. Macmillan, 1969. Percy, Sarah. Mercenaries: The history of a norm in international relations (Oxford University Press, 2007). Schmidt, H. D. "The Hessian Mercenaries: The Career of a Political Cliché." History 43.149 (1958): 207–212 online Scullard, Howard H. (2006) [1989]. "Carthage and Rome". In Walbank, F. W.; Astin, A. E.; Frederiksen, M. W.; Ogilvie, R. M. (eds.). Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 7, Part 2 (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 486–569. ISBN 978-0-521-23446-7. Thomson, Janice E. Mercenaries, pirates, and sovereigns: state-building and extraterritorial violence in early modern Europe. Princeton University Press, 1994. ISBN 1400808014 Describes the building of the modern state system through the states' "monopolization of extraterritorial violence." Underwood, Matthew. "Jealousies of a standing army: the use of mercenaries in the American revolution and its implications for Congress's role in regulating private military firms." 'Northwestern University Law Review 106 (2012): 317-349. Since 1970s: Guy Arnold. Mercenaries: The Scourge of the Third World. Palgrave Macmillan, 1999. ISBN 978-0312222031 Doug Brooks & Shawn Lee Rathgeber. "The Industry Role in Regulating Private Security Companies", Canadian Consortium on Human Security – Security Privatization: Challenges and Opportunities, Vol. 6.3, University of British Columbia, March 2008. Anthony Mockler. Hired Guns and Coups d'Etat: Mercenaries: Thirty Years 1976–2006. Hunter Mackay, 2007. Anthony Mockler. The New Mercenaries: The History of the Mercenary from the Congo to the Seychelles. Paragon House, 1987. Robert Young Pelton. Hunter Hammer and Heaven, Journeys to Three World's Gone Mad, ISBN 1585744166 Jeremy Scahill. Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, Nation Books, 2007. ISBN 1560259795 Peter J. Woolley. "Soldiers of Fortune," The Common Review, v. 5, no. 4(2007), pp. 46–48. Review essay. Status in international law: Marina Mancini; Private Military and Security Company Employees: Are They the Mercenaries of the Twenty-first Century?, EUI Working Paper AEL 2010/5, European University Institute, San Domenico di Fiesole, 2010, ISSN 1831-4066. Katherine Fallah; Corporate Actors: the Legal Status of Mercenaries in Armed Conflict, International Review of the Red Cross, (2006) Eliav Lieblich; "The Status of mercenaries in International Armed Conflict as a case of politicization of International Humanitarian Law", Bucerius Law Journal, (2009) Private military companies (PMCs): Robert Young Pelton; Licensed to Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror, Crown, (2006), ISBN 1400097819 José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers' Collective; Private Security Transnational Enterprises in Colombia Archived 17 April 2008 at the Wayback Machine February 2008 External links: The Security Contracting Network is resource and community of security contracting professionals. PMCs Monitor: An international organization which advocates for tighter rules The Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination UNHCR

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military

Etymology and definitions: The first recorded use of the word "military" in English, spelled militarie, was in 1582. It comes from the Latin militaris (from Latin miles 'soldier') through French, but is of uncertain etymology, one suggestion being derived from *mil-it- – going in a body or mass. As a noun phrase, "the military" usually refers generally to a country's armed forces, or sometimes, more specifically, to the senior officers who command them. In general, it refers to the physicality of armed forces, their personnel, equipment, and the physical area which they occupy. As an adjective, military originally referred only to soldiers and soldiering, but it broadened to apply to land forces in general, and anything to do with their profession. The names of both the Royal Military Academy (1741) and United States Military Academy (1802) reflect this. However, at about the time of the Napoleonic Wars, military began to be used in reference to armed forces as a whole, such as "military service", "military intelligence", and "military history". As such, it now connotes any activity performed by armed force personnel. History: Military history is often considered to be the history of all conflicts, not just the history of the state militaries. It differs somewhat from the history of war, with military history focusing on the people and institutions of war-making, while the history of war focuses on the evolution of war itself in the face of changing technology, governments, and geography. Military history has a number of facets. One main facet is to learn from past accomplishments and mistakes, so as to more effectively wage war in the future. Another is to create a sense of military tradition, which is used to create cohesive military forces. Still, another is to learn to prevent wars more effectively. Human knowledge about the military is largely based on both recorded and oral history of military conflicts (war), their participating armies and navies and, more recently, air forces. Organization: Personnel and units: Despite the growing importance of military technology, military activity depends above all on people. For example, in 2000 the British Army declared: "Man is still the first weapon of war." Rank and role: The military organization is characterized by a command hierarchy divided by military rank, with ranks normally grouped (in descending order of authority) as officers (e.g. colonel), non-commissioned officers (e.g. sergeant), and personnel at the lowest rank (e.g. private). While senior officers make strategic decisions, subordinated military personnel (soldiers, sailors, marines, or airmen) fulfil them. Although rank titles vary by military branch and country, the rank hierarchy is common to all state armed forces worldwide. In addition to their rank, personnel occupy one of many trade roles, which are often grouped according to the nature of the role's military tasks on combat operations: combat roles (e.g. infantry), combat support roles (e.g. combat engineers), and combat service support roles (e.g. logistical support). Recruitment: Personnel may be recruited or conscripted, depending on the system chosen by the state. Most military personnel are males; the minority proportion of female personnel varies internationally (approximately 3% in India, 10% in the UK, 13% in Sweden, 16% in the US, and 27% in South Africa). While two-thirds of states now recruit or conscript only adults, as of 2017 50 states still relied partly on children under the age of 18 (usually aged 16 or 17) to staff their armed forces. Whereas recruits who join as officers tend to be upwardly-mobile, most enlisted personnel have a childhood background of relative socio-economic deprivation. For example, after the US suspended conscription in 1973, "the military disproportionately attracted African American men, men from lower-status socioeconomic backgrounds, men who had been in nonacademic high school programs, and men whose high school grades tended to be low". However, a study released in 2020 on the socio-economic backgrounds of U.S. Armed Forces personnel suggests that they are at parity or slightly higher than the civilian population with respect to socio-economic indicators such as parental income, parental wealth and cognitive abilities. The study found that technological, tactical, operational and doctrinal changes have led to a change in the demand for personnel. Furthermore, the study suggests that the most disadvantaged socio-economic groups are less likely to meet the requirements of the modern U.S. military. Obligations: The obligations of military employment are many. Full-time military employment normally requires a minimum period of service of several years; between two and six years is typical of armed forces in Australia, the UK and the US, for example, depending on role, branch, and rank. Some armed forces allow a short discharge window, normally during training, when recruits may leave the armed force as of right. Alternatively, part-time military employment, known as reserve service, allows a recruit to maintain a civilian job while training under military discipline at weekends; he or she may be called out to deploy on operations to supplement the full-time personnel complement. After leaving the armed forces, recruits may remain liable for compulsory return to full-time military employment in order to train or deploy on operations. Military law introduces offences not recognized by civilian courts, such as absence without leave (AWOL), desertion, political acts, malingering, behaving disrespectfully, and disobedience (see, for example, offences against military law in the United Kingdom). Penalties range from a summary reprimand to imprisonment for several years following a court martial. Certain rights are also restricted or suspended, including the freedom of association (e.g. union organizing) and freedom of speech (speaking to the media). Military personnel in some countries have a right of conscientious objection if they believe an order is immoral or unlawful, or cannot in good conscience carry it out. Personnel may be posted to bases in their home country or overseas, according to operational need, and may be deployed from those bases on exercises or operations. During peacetime, when military personnel are generally stationed in garrisons or other permanent military facilities, they conduct administrative tasks, training and education activities, technology maintenance, and recruitment. Training: Initial training conditions recruits for the demands of military life, including preparedness to injure and kill other people, and to face mortal danger without fleeing. It is a physically and psychologically intensive process which resocializes recruits for the unique nature of military demands. For example: Individuality is suppressed (e.g. by shaving the head of new recruits, issuing uniforms, denying privacy, and prohibiting the use of first names); Daily routine is tightly controlled (e.g. recruits must make their beds, polish boots, and stack their clothes in a certain way, and mistakes are punished); Continuous stressors deplete psychological resistance to the demands of their instructors (e.g. depriving recruits of sleep, food, or shelter, shouting insults and giving orders intended to humiliate) Frequent punishments serve to condition group conformity and discourage poor performance; The disciplined drill instructor is presented as a role model of the ideal soldier. Intelligence: The next requirement comes as a fairly basic need for the military to identify possible threats it may be called upon to face. For this purpose, some of the commanding forces and other military, as well as often civilian personnel participate in identification of these threats. This is at once an organization, a system and a process collectively called military intelligence (MI). Areas of study in Military intelligence may include the operational environment, hostile, friendly and neutral forces, the civilian population in an area of combat operations, and other broader areas of interest. The difficulty in using military intelligence concepts and military intelligence methods is in the nature of the secrecy of the information they seek, and the clandestine nature that intelligence operatives work in obtaining what may be plans for a conflict escalation, initiation of combat, or an invasion. An important part of the military intelligence role is the military analysis performed to assess military capability of potential future aggressors, and provide combat modelling that helps to understand factors on which comparison of forces can be made. This helps to quantify and qualify such statements as: "China and India maintain the largest armed forces in the World" or that "the U.S. Military is considered to be the world's strongest". Although some groups engaged in combat, such as militants or resistance movements, refer to themselves using military terminology, notably 'Army' or 'Front', none have had the structure of a national military to justify the reference, and usually have had to rely on support of outside national militaries. They also use these terms to conceal from the MI their true capabilities, and to impress potential ideological recruits. Having military intelligence representatives participate in the execution of the national defence policy is important, because it becomes the first respondent and commentator on the policy expected strategic goal, compared to the realities of identified threats. When the intelligence reporting is compared to the policy, it becomes possible for the national leadership to consider allocating resources over and above the officers and their subordinates military pay, and the expense of maintaining military facilities and military support services for them. Economics: Defense economics is the financial and monetary efforts made to resource and sustain militaries, and to finance military operations, including war. The process of allocating resources is conducted by determining a military budget, which is administered by a military finance organization within the military. Military procurement is then authorized to purchase or contract provision of goods and services to the military, whether in peacetime at a permanent base, or in a combat zone from local population.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military

They also use these terms to conceal from the MI their true capabilities, and to impress potential ideological recruits. Having military intelligence representatives participate in the execution of the national defence policy is important, because it becomes the first respondent and commentator on the policy expected strategic goal, compared to the realities of identified threats. When the intelligence reporting is compared to the policy, it becomes possible for the national leadership to consider allocating resources over and above the officers and their subordinates military pay, and the expense of maintaining military facilities and military support services for them. Economics: Defense economics is the financial and monetary efforts made to resource and sustain militaries, and to finance military operations, including war. The process of allocating resources is conducted by determining a military budget, which is administered by a military finance organization within the military. Military procurement is then authorized to purchase or contract provision of goods and services to the military, whether in peacetime at a permanent base, or in a combat zone from local population. Capability development: Capability development, which is often referred to as the military 'strength', is arguably one of the most complex activities known to humanity; because it requires determining: strategic, operational, and tactical capability requirements to counter the identified threats; strategic, operational, and tactical doctrines by which the acquired capabilities will be used; identifying concepts, methods, and systems involved in executing the doctrines; creating design specifications for the manufacturers who would produce these in adequate quantity and quality for their use in combat; purchase the concepts, methods, and systems; create a forces structure that would use the concepts, methods, and systems most effectively and efficiently; integrate these concepts, methods, and systems into the force structure by providing military education, training, and practice that preferably resembles combat environment of intended use; create military logistics systems to allow continued and uninterrupted performance of military organizations under combat conditions, including provision of health services to the personnel, and maintenance for the equipment; the services to assist recovery of wounded personnel, and repair of damaged equipment; and finally, post-conflict demobilization, and disposal of war stocks surplus to peacetime requirements. Development of military doctrine is perhaps the most important of all capability development activities, because it determines how military forces are used in conflicts, the concepts and methods used by the command to employ appropriately military skilled, armed and equipped personnel in achievement of the tangible goals and objectives of the war, campaign, battle, engagement, and action. The line between strategy and tactics is not easily blurred, although deciding which is being discussed had sometimes been a matter of personal judgement by some commentators, and military historians. The use of forces at the level of organization between strategic and tactical is called operational mobility. Science: Because most of the concepts and methods used by the military, and many of its systems are not found in commercial branches, much of the material is researched, designed, developed, and offered for inclusion in arsenals by military science organizations within the overall structure of the military. Therefore, military scientists can be found interacting with all Arms and Services of the armed forces, and at all levels of the military hierarchy of command. Although concerned with research into military psychology, particularly combat stress and how it affects troop morale, often the bulk of military science activities is directed at military intelligence technology, military communications, and improving military capability through research. The design, development, and prototyping of weapons, military support equipment, and military technology in general, is also an area in which much effort is invested – it includes everything from global communication networks and aircraft carriers to paint and food. Logistics: Possessing military capability is not sufficient if this capability cannot be deployed for, and employed in combat operations. To achieve this, military logistics are used for the logistics management and logistics planning of the forces military supply chain management, the consumables, and capital equipment of the troops. Although mostly concerned with the military transport, as a means of delivery using different modes of transport; from military trucks, to container ships operating from permanent military base, it also involves creating field supply dumps at the rear of the combat zone, and even forward supply points in a specific unit's tactical area of responsibility. These supply points are also used to provide military engineering services, such as the recovery of defective and derelict vehicles and weapons, maintenance of weapons in the field, the repair and field modification of weapons and equipment; and in peacetime, the life-extension programmes undertaken to allow continued use of equipment. One of the most important role of logistics is the supply of munitions as a primary type of consumable, their storage, and disposal. In combat: The primary reason for the existence of the military is to engage in combat, should it be required to do so by the national defence policy, and to win. This represents an organisational goal of any military, and the primary focus for military thought through military history. How victory is achieved, and what shape it assumes, is studied by most, if not all, military groups on three levels. Strategic victory: Military strategy is the management of forces in wars and military campaigns by a commander-in-chief, employing large military forces, either national and allied as a whole, or the component elements of armies, navies and air forces; such as army groups, naval fleets, and large numbers of aircraft. Military strategy is a long-term projection of belligerents' policy, with a broad view of outcome implications, including outside the concerns of military command. Military strategy is more concerned with the supply of war and planning, than management of field forces and combat between them. The scope of strategic military planning can span weeks, but is more often months or even years. Operational victory: Operational mobility is, within warfare and military doctrine, the level of command which coordinates the minute details of tactics with the overarching goals of strategy. A common synonym is operational art. The operational level is at a scale bigger than one where line of sight and the time of day are important, and smaller than the strategic level, where production and politics are considerations. Formations are of the operational level if they are able to conduct operations on their own, and are of sufficient size to be directly handled or have a significant impact at the strategic level. This concept was pioneered by the German army prior to and during the Second World War. At this level, planning and duration of activities takes from one week to a month, and are executed by Field Armies and Army Corps and their naval and air equivalents. Tactical victory: Military tactics concerns itself with the methods for engaging and defeating the enemy in direct combat. Military tactics are usually used by units over hours or days, and are focused on the specific tasks and objectives of squadrons, companies, battalions, regiments, brigades, and divisions, and their naval and air force equivalents. One of the oldest military publications is The Art of War, by the Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu. Written in the 6th century BCE, the 13-chapter book is intended as military instruction, and not as military theory, but has had a huge influence on Asian military doctrine, and from the late 19th century, on European and United States military planning. It has even been used to formulate business tactics, and can even be applied in social and political areas. The Classical Greeks and the Romans wrote prolifically on military campaigning. Among the best-known Roman works are Julius Caesar's commentaries on the Gallic Wars, and the Roman Civil war – written about 50 BC. Two major works on tactics come from the late Roman period: Taktike Theoria by Aelianus Tacticus, and De Re Militari ('On military matters') by Vegetius. Taktike Theoria examined Greek military tactics, and was most influential in the Byzantine world and during the Golden Age of Islam. De Re Militari formed the basis of European military tactics until the late 17th century. Perhaps its most enduring maxim is Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum (let he who desires peace prepare for war). Due to the changing nature of combat with the introduction of artillery in the European Middle Ages, and infantry firearms in the Renaissance, attempts were made to define and identify those strategies, grand tactics, and tactics that would produce a victory more often than that achieved by the Romans in praying to the gods before the battle. Later this became known as military science, and later still, would adopt the scientific method approach to the conduct of military operations under the influence of the Industrial Revolution thinking. In his seminal book On War, the Prussian Major-General and leading expert on modern military strategy, Carl von Clausewitz defined military strategy as 'the employment of battles to gain the end of war'. According to Clausewitz: strategy forms the plan of the War, and to this end it links together the series of acts which are to lead to the final decision, that is to say, it makes the plans for the separate campaigns and regulates the combats to be fought in each. Hence, Clausewitz placed political aims above military goals, ensuring civilian control of the military. Military strategy was one of a triumvirate of 'arts' or 'sciences' that governed the conduct of warfare, the others being: military tactics, the execution of plans and manoeuvring of forces in battle, and maintenance of an army. The meaning of military tactics has changed over time; from the deployment and manoeuvring of entire land armies on the fields of ancient battles, and galley fleets; to modern use of small unit ambushes, encirclements, bombardment attacks, frontal assaults, air assaults, hit-and-run tactics used mainly by guerrilla forces, and, in some cases, suicide attacks on land and at sea. Evolution of aerial warfare introduced its own air combat tactics.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military

Hence, Clausewitz placed political aims above military goals, ensuring civilian control of the military. Military strategy was one of a triumvirate of 'arts' or 'sciences' that governed the conduct of warfare, the others being: military tactics, the execution of plans and manoeuvring of forces in battle, and maintenance of an army. The meaning of military tactics has changed over time; from the deployment and manoeuvring of entire land armies on the fields of ancient battles, and galley fleets; to modern use of small unit ambushes, encirclements, bombardment attacks, frontal assaults, air assaults, hit-and-run tactics used mainly by guerrilla forces, and, in some cases, suicide attacks on land and at sea. Evolution of aerial warfare introduced its own air combat tactics. Often, military deception, in the form of military camouflage or misdirection using decoys, is used to confuse the enemy as a tactic. A major development in infantry tactics came with the increased use of trench warfare in the 19th and 20th centuries. This was mainly employed in World War I in the Gallipoli campaign, and the Western Front. Trench warfare often turned to a stalemate, only broken by a large loss of life, because, in order to attack an enemy entrenchment, soldiers had to run through an exposed 'no man's land' under heavy fire from their opposing entrenched enemy. Technology: As with any occupation, since ancient times, the military has been distinguished from other members of the society by their tools: the weapons and military equipment used in combat. When Stone Age humans first took flint to tip the spear, it was the first example of applying technology to improve the weapon. Since then, the advances made by human societies, and that of weapons, has been closely linked. Stone weapons gave way to Bronze Age and Iron Age weapons such as swords and shields. With each technological change was realized some tangible increase in military capability, such as through greater effectiveness of a sharper edge in defeating armour, or improved density of materials used in manufacture of weapons. On land, the first significant technological advance in warfare was the development of ranged weapons, notably the sling and later the bow and arrow. The next significant advance came with the domestication of the horses and mastering of equestrianism, creating cavalry and allowing for faster military advances and better logistics. Possibly the most significant advancement was the wheel, a staple of transportation, starting with the chariot and eventually siege engines. The bow was manufactured in increasingly larger and more powerful versions to increase both the weapon range and armour penetration performance, developing into composite bows, recurve bows, longbows, and crossbows. These proved particularly useful during the rise of cavalry, as horsemen encased in ever-more sophisticated armour came to dominate the battlefield. In medieval China, gunpowder had been invented, and was increasingly used by the military in combat. The use of gunpowder in the early vase-like mortars in Europe, and advanced versions of the longbow and crossbow with armour-piercing arrowheads, put an end to the dominance of the armoured knight. Gunpowder resulted in the development and fielding of the musket, which could be used effectively with little training. In time, the successors to muskets and cannons, in the form of rifles and artillery, would become core battlefield technology.As the speed of technological advances accelerated in civilian applications, so too did military and warfare become industrialized. The newly invented machine gun and repeating rifle redefined firepower on the battlefield, and, in part, explains the high casualty rates of the American Civil War and the decline of melee combat in warfare. The next breakthrough was the conversion of artillery parks from the muzzle-loading guns, to quicker breech-loading guns with recoiling barrels that allowed quicker aimed fire and use of a shield. The widespread introduction of low smoke (smokeless) propellant powders since the 1880s also allowed for a great improvement of artillery ranges. The development of breech loading had the greatest effect on naval warfare for the first time since the Middle Ages, altering the way weapons are mounted on warships. Naval tactics were divorced from the reliance on sails with the invention of the internal combustion. A further advance in military naval technology was the submarine and the torpedo.During World War I, the need to break the deadlock of trench warfare saw the rapid development of many new technologies, particularly tanks. Military aviation was extensively used, and bombers became decisive in many battles of World War II, which marked the most frantic period of weapons development in history. Many new designs, and concepts were used in combat, and all existing technologies of warfare were improved between 1939 and 1945. During World War II, significant advances were made in military communications through increased use of radio, military intelligence through use of the radar, and in military medicine through use of penicillin, while in the air, the guided missile, jet aircraft, and helicopters were seen for the first time. Perhaps the most infamous of all military technologies was the creation of nuclear weapons, although the exact effects of its radiation were unknown until the early 1950s. Far greater use of military vehicles had finally eliminated the cavalry from the military force structure. After World War II, with the onset of the Cold War, the constant technological development of new weapons was institutionalized, as participants engaged in a constant arms race in capability development. This constant state of weapons development continues into the present. Main battle tanks, and other heavy equipment such as armoured fighting vehicles, military aircraft, and ships, are characteristic to organized military forces. The most significant technological developments that influenced combat have been guided missiles, which can be used by all branches of the armed services. More recently, information technology, and its use in surveillance, including space-based reconnaissance systems, have played an increasing role in military operations. The impact of information warfare, which focuses on attacking command communication systems, and military databases, has been coupled with the use of robotic systems in combat, such as unmanned combat aerial vehicles and unmanned ground vehicles. Recently, there has also been a particular focus towards the use of renewable fuels for running military vehicles on. Unlike fossil fuels, renewable fuels can be produced in any country, creating a strategic advantage. The U.S. military has committed itself to have 50% of its energy consumption come from alternative sources. As part of society: For much of military history, the armed forces were considered to be for use by the heads of their societies, until recently, the crowned heads of states. In a democracy or other political system run in the public interest, it is a public force. The relationship between the military and the society it serves is a complicated and ever-evolving one. Much depends on the nature of the society itself, and whether it sees the military as important, as for example in time of threat or war, or a burdensome expense typified by defence cuts in time of peace. One difficult matter in the relation between military and society is control and transparency. In some countries, limited information on military operations and budgeting is accessible for the public. However, transparency in the military sector is crucial to fight corruption. This showed the Government Defence Anti-corruption Index Transparency International UK published in 2013. Militaries often function as societies within societies, by having their own military communities, economies, education, medicine, and other aspects of a functioning civilian society. A military is not limited to nations in of itself, as many private military companies (or PMCs) can be used or hired by organizations and figures as security, escort, or other means of protection where police, agencies, or militaries are absent or not trusted. Ideology and ethics: Militarist ideology is the society's social attitude of being best served, or being a beneficiary of a government, or guided by concepts embodied in the military culture, doctrine, system, or leaders. Either because of the cultural memory, national history, or the potentiality of a military threat, the militarist argument asserts that a civilian population is dependent upon, and thereby subservient to the needs and goals of its military for continued independence. Militarism is sometimes contrasted with the concepts of comprehensive national power, soft power and hard power. Most nations have separate military laws which regulate conduct in war and during peacetime. An early exponent was Hugo Grotius, whose On the Law of War and Peace (1625) had a major impact of the humanitarian approach to warfare development. His theme was echoed by Gustavus Adolphus. Ethics of warfare have developed since 1945, to create constraints on the military treatment of prisoners and civilians, primarily by the Geneva Conventions; but rarely apply to use of the military forces as internal security troops during times of political conflict that results in popular protests and incitement to popular uprising. International protocols restrict the use, or have even created international bans on some types of weapons, notably weapons of mass destruction (WMD). International conventions define what constitutes a war crime, and provides for war crimes prosecution. Individual countries also have elaborate codes of military justice, an example being the United States' Uniform Code of Military Justice that can lead to court martial for military personnel found guilty of war crimes. Military actions are sometimes argued to be justified by furthering a humanitarian cause, such as disaster relief operations to defend refugees; such actions are called military humanism.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military

His theme was echoed by Gustavus Adolphus. Ethics of warfare have developed since 1945, to create constraints on the military treatment of prisoners and civilians, primarily by the Geneva Conventions; but rarely apply to use of the military forces as internal security troops during times of political conflict that results in popular protests and incitement to popular uprising. International protocols restrict the use, or have even created international bans on some types of weapons, notably weapons of mass destruction (WMD). International conventions define what constitutes a war crime, and provides for war crimes prosecution. Individual countries also have elaborate codes of military justice, an example being the United States' Uniform Code of Military Justice that can lead to court martial for military personnel found guilty of war crimes. Military actions are sometimes argued to be justified by furthering a humanitarian cause, such as disaster relief operations to defend refugees; such actions are called military humanism. See also: Armed forces of the world List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel List of countries by level of military equipment List of countries by Global Militarization Index List of countries without armed forces List of countries by military expenditures List of countries by past military expenditure List of countries by military expenditure per capita List of militaries by country List of air forces Lists of armies List of navies References: External links: Military Expenditure % of GDP hosted by Lebanese economy forum, extracted from the World Bank public data. Military at Curlie

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military administration

Citations and notes: References: Weber, Jeffrey A., Eliasson, Johan, Handbook of Military Administration, CRC Press, 2007

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military awards and decorations

History: Decorations have been known since ancient times. The Egyptian Old Kingdom had the Order of the Golden Collar while the New Kingdom awarded the Order of the Golden Fly. Celts and Romans wore a torc or received other military decorations such as the hasta pura, a spear without a tip. Dayaks wore and still wear tattoos, etc. Necklaces and bracelets were given during the early Middle Ages, evolving into large, richly jewelled necklaces, often with a pendant (commonly a medal) attached. The oldest military decorations still in use is Sweden's För tapperhet i fält ('For Valour in the Field') and För tapperhet till sjöss ('For Valour at Sea') awarded to officers and soldiers of the Swedish Armed Forces who have—as the medal names suggest—shown valour in the field or at sea in wartime. The medal was instituted by Swedish king Gustav III on 28 May 1789, during his war against Russia. Whilst technically it is still active, it is for practical purposes inactive, not having been awarded since 1915. The next oldest is the Austro-Hungarian Tapferkeits Medaille Honour Medal for Bravery 1789–1792. This medal was instituted on 19 July 1789, by the Emperor Joseph II. Another of the oldest military decorations still in use is Poland's War Order of Virtuti Militari (Latin for 'For Military Valour'). It was first awarded in 1792. Forgery: Medals have been forged by many people to make the medal appear more valuable or to make one look like a more decorated soldier. Medal forgeries can include: adding bars, engraving a famous soldier's name on it or creating a whole new medal. Medal forgery is illegal in most countries and can be punishable by imprisonment. Contemporary use: Today military decorations include: Orders of merit; Bravery awards, in the form of a cross, star or medal on a ribbon; Distinguished service awards, in the form of a cross, star or medal on a ribbon; Campaign medals worn on a ribbon; Service medals worn on a ribbon; Awards for entire units, in the form of battle honours, campaign streamers, fourragères, or unit citations. In most NATO militaries, only the service ribbons are normally worn on everyday occasions (as opposed to the actual medals). See also: List of military decorations List of highest military decorations by country Civil decoration State decoration Neck decoration Commonwealth Realms orders and decorations Awards and decorations of the United States military Awards and decorations of the Russian Federation Awards and decorations of the Soviet Union Israeli military decorations Orders, decorations, and medals of Spain Orders, decorations, and medals of Belgium Awards and decorations of the German Armed Forces Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom Medal inflation == References ==

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military base

Jurisdictional definition: Military bases within the United States are considered federal property and are subject to federal law. Civilians (such as family members of military officers) living on military bases are generally subject to the civil and criminal laws of the states where the bases are located. Military bases can range from small outposts to military cities containing up to 100,000 people. A military base may belong to a different nation or state than the territory surrounding it. Naming: The name used generally refers to the type of military activity that takes place at the base, as well as the traditional nomenclature used by a branch of service. A military base may go by any of a number of names, such as the following: Types of establishment: Depending on the context, the term "military base" may refer to any establishment (usually permanent) that houses a nation's armed forces, or even organized paramilitary forces such as the police, constabulary, militia, or national guards. Alternatively, the term may refer solely to an establishment which is used only by an army (or possibly other land fighting related forces, such as marines) to the exclusion of a base used by either an air force or a navy. This is consistent with the different meanings of the word 'military'. Some examples of permanent military bases used by the navies and air forces of the world are the HMNB Portsmouth in Portsmouth, UK, the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington State, US, or Ramstein Air Base, Germany (the last two are each designated as a Main Operating Base). Other examples of non- or semi-permanent military bases include a Forward Operating Base (FOB), a Logistics Base (Log base) and a Fire Base (FB). A military base may also contain large concentrations of military supplies in order to support military logistics. Most military bases are restricted to the public and usually only authorized personnel may enter them (be it military personnel or their relatives and authorized civilian personnel). In addition to the main military facilities on a certain installation, military bases usually (but not always) have various different facilities for military personnel. These facilities vary from country to country. Military bases can provide housing for military personnel, a post office and dining facilities (restaurants). They may also provide support facilities such as fast food restaurants, gas stations, chapels, schools, banks, thrift stores, a hospital or clinic (dental or health clinics, as well as veterinarian clinics), lodging, movie theaters, and, in some countries, retail stores (usually a supermarket such as Commissary and a Department Store, such as AAFES). On American military installations, Family, Morale, Welfare and Recreation (FMWR) provides facilities such as fitness centers, libraries, golf courses, travel centers, community service centers, campgrounds, child development centers, youth centers, automotive workshops, hobby/arts and crafts centers, bowling centers, and community centers. Bases used by the United States Air Force Reserve tend to be active USAF bases. However, there are a few Air Reserve Bases, such as Dobbins ARB, Georgia, and Grissom ARB, Indiana, both of which are former active-duty USAF bases. Facilities of the Air National Guard are often located on civil airports in a secure cantonment area not accessible to the general public, though some units are based on USAF bases, and a few ANG-operated bases, such as Selfridge ANGB, Michigan. Support facilities on Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve installations tend to not be as extensive as active bases (i.e., they usually do not have on-base lodging (though Kingsley Field ANGB, Oregon, is an exception), clinics (except for drill days), or retail stores (although some have small convenience stores)). In Russian usage "military base" or "naval base" is not limited to denoting a specific fence described facility and usually encompasses a broad territory within which a number of discrete facilities may be located. As examples, 1) the Russian Sevastopol Naval Base comprises individual facilities located within the city of Sevastopol proper (waterfront moorings, weapons stores, a headquarters compound, and a naval infantry base) as well as an airfield at Kacha north of the city; 2) the Leningrad Naval Base comprises all naval facilities in the greater St. Petersburg area including training schools, commissioning institutes, the naval academy, and the Kronshtadt base on Kotlin island. Overseas military base: An overseas military base is a military base that is geographically located outside of the territory of the country whose armed forces are the principal occupants of the base. Such bases may be established by treaties between the governing power in the host country and another country which needs to establish the military base in the host country for various reasons, usually strategic and logistic. Furthermore, overseas military bases often serve as the source of the military brat subculture due to the children of the bases' occupant military being born or raised in the host country but raised with a remote parental knowledge of the occupant military's home country. British military bases: In the 18th and 19th centuries the Royal Engineers were largely responsible for erecting military bases in the British Isles and the British Empire. In 1792 the Chief Engineer was instructed to prepare the Barrack Construction estimates for Parliament and at the same time the Department of the Barrackmaster-General was established. During the period from the 1840s through the 1860s barracks were constructed under supervision of the Royal Engineers in: Bristol (1847) Preston (1848) Tower of London (1851) Sheerness (1854) Sheffield (1854) Curragh Camp (1855) Devonport (1856) Chelsea (1861) The Cardwell Reforms (1872) ushered in another period of intensive Barrack building at Aldershot, Portsmouth, Plymouth, London, Woking, Woolwich, Dublin, Belfast, Malta, Gibraltar and the Cape of Good Hope. In 1959 the Corps' Work Services was transferred to the civilian War Department Works Organization (later renamed Property Services Agency (PSA)) and by 1965 the (Specialist Teams Royal Engineers (STRE)) were formed to plan and execute Works projects worldwide. Some British and Commonwealth naval bases are traditionally named, commissioned, and administered as though they were naval ships. For this reason they are sometimes called stone frigates. Related term: Billet Kaserne See also: List of United States military bases List of military bases References: External links: Official Directory of US Military bases. Royal Engineers Museum Military Works (construction) New US Military Bases: Side Effects Or Causes Of War? by Zoltan Grossman US Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) Outposts of Empire – Booklet and map of the American military bases in the world. Transnational Institute, March 2007

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military branch

Types of branches: Unified armed forces: The Canadian Armed Forces is the unified armed forces of Canada. While it has three environmental commands - namely the Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Navy, and Royal Canadian Air Force - it remains a single military service. NATO definition: Branch of service (also branch of military service or branch of armed service) refers, according to NATO standards, to a branch, employment of combined forces or parts of a service, below the level of service, military service, or armed service. See also: List of militaries by country Military organization == References ==

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military camouflage

Principles: Military camouflage is part of the art of military deception. The main objective of military camouflage is to deceive the enemy as to the presence, position and intentions of military formations. Camouflage techniques include concealment, disguise, and dummies, applied to troops, vehicles, and positions. Vision is the main sense of orientation in humans, and the primary function of camouflage is to deceive the human eye. Camouflage works through concealment (whether by countershading, preventing casting shadows, or disruption of outlines), mimicry, or possibly by dazzle. In modern warfare, some forms of camouflage, for example face paints, also offer concealment from infrared sensors, while CADPAT textiles in addition help to provide concealment from radar. Compromises: While camouflage tricks are in principle limitless, both cost and practical considerations limit the choice of methods and the time and effort devoted to camouflage. Paint and uniforms must also protect vehicles and soldiers from the elements. Units need to move, fire their weapons and perform other tasks to keep functional, some of which run counter to camouflage. Camouflage may be dropped altogether. Late in the Second World War, the USAAF abandoned camouflage paint for some aircraft to lure enemy fighters to attack, while in the Cold War, some aircraft similarly flew with polished metal skins, to reduce drag and weight, or to reduce vulnerability to radiation from nuclear weapons. No single camouflage pattern is effective in all terrains. The effectiveness of a pattern depends on contrast as well as colour tones. Strong contrasts which disrupt outlines are better suited for environments such as forests where the play of light and shade is prominent, while low contrasts are better suited to open terrain with little shading structure. Terrain-specific camouflage patterns, made to match the local terrain, may be more effective in that terrain than more general patterns. However, unlike an animal or a civilian hunter, military units may need to cross several terrain types like woodland, farmland and built up areas in a single day. While civilian hunting clothing may have almost photo-realistic depictions of tree bark or leaves (indeed, some such patterns are based on photographs), military camouflage is designed to work in a range of environments. With the cost of uniforms in particular being substantial, most armies operating globally have two separate full uniforms, one for woodland/jungle and one for desert and other dry terrain. An American attempt at a global camouflage pattern for all environments (the 2004 UCP) was produced, however after a few years of service it was withdrawn due to poor performance. On the other end of the scale are terrain specific patterns like the "Berlin camo", applied to British vehicles operating in Berlin during the Cold War, where square fields of various gray shades was designed to hide vehicles against the mostly concrete architecture of post-war Berlin. Other functions: Camouflage patterns serve cultural functions alongside concealment. Apart from concealment, uniforms are also the primary means for soldiers to tell friends and enemies apart. The camouflage experts and evolutionary zoologists L. Talas, R. J. Baddeley and Innes Cuthill analyzed calibrated photographs of a series of NATO and Warsaw Pact uniform patterns and demonstrated that their evolution did not serve any known principles of military camouflage intended to provide concealment. Instead, when the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, the uniforms of the countries that began to favour the West politically started to converge on the colours and textures of NATO patterns. After the death of Marshal Tito and the breakup of what had been Yugoslavia, the camouflage patterns of the new nations changed, coming to resemble the camouflage patterns used by the armies of their neighbours. The authors note that military camouflage resembles animal coloration in having multiple simultaneous functions. Snow camouflage: Seasons may play a role in some regions. A dramatic change in colour and texture is created by seasonal snowy conditions in northern latitudes, necessitating repainting of vehicles and separate snow oversuits. The Eastern and northern European countries have a tradition for separate winter uniforms rather than oversuits. During the Second World War, the Waffen-SS went a step further, developing reversible uniforms with separate schemes for summer and autumn, as well as white winter oversuits. Movement: While patterns can provide more effective crypsis than solid colour when the camouflaged object is stationary, any pattern, particularly one with high contrast, stands out when the object is moving. Jungle camouflage uniforms were issued during the Second World War, but both the British and American forces found that a simple green uniform provided better camouflage when soldiers were moving. After the war, most nations returned to a unicoloured uniform for their troops. Some nations, notably Austria and Israel, continue to use solid colour combat uniforms today. Similarly, while larger military aircraft traditionally had a disruptive pattern with a darker top over a lighter lower surface (a form of countershading), modern fast fighter aircraft often wear gray overall. Digital camouflage: Digital camouflage provides a disruptive effect through the use of pixellated patterns at a range of scales, meaning that the camouflage helps to defeat observation at a range of distances. Such patterns were first developed during the Second World War, when Johann Georg Otto Schick designed a number of patterns for the Waffen-SS, combining micro- and macro-patterns in one scheme. The German Army developed the idea further in the 1970s into Flecktarn, which combines smaller shapes with dithering; this softens the edges of the large scale pattern, making the underlying objects harder to discern. Pixellated shapes pre-date computer aided design by many years, already being used in Soviet Union experiments with camouflage patterns, such as "TTsMKK" developed in 1944 or 1945. In the 1970s, US Army officer Timothy R. O'Neill suggested that patterns consisting of square blocks of colour would provide effective camouflage. By 2000, O'Neill's idea was combined with patterns like the German Flecktarn to create pixellated patterns such as CADPAT and MARPAT. Battledress in digital camouflage patterns was first designed by the Canadian Forces. The "digital" refers to the coordinates of the pattern, which are digitally defined. The term is also used of computer generated patterns like the non-pixellated Multicam and the Italian fractal Vegetato pattern. Pixellation does not in itself contribute to the camouflaging effect. The pixellated style, however, simplifies design and eases printing on fabric. Non-visual: With the birth of radar and sonar and other means of detecting military hardware not depending on the human eye, came means of camouflaging against them. Collectively these are known as stealth technology. Aircraft and ships can be shaped to reflect radar impulses away from the sender, and covered with radar-absorbing materials, to reduce their radar signature. The use of heat-seeking missiles has also led to efforts to hide the heat signature of aircraft engines. Methods include exhaust ports shaped to mix hot exhaust gases with cold surrounding air, and placing the exhaust ports on the upper side of the airframe. Multi-spectral camouflage attempts to hide objects from several detection methods such as infrared, radar, ultraviolet, and millimetre-wave imaging simultaneously. As of 2018, multiple countries are phasing out legacy camouflage systems with multi-spectral systems. Auditory camouflage, at least in the form of noise reduction, is practised in various ways. The rubberized hull of military submarines absorbs sonar waves and can be seen as a form of auditory camouflage. Some modern helicopters are designed to be quiet. Combat uniforms are usually equipped with buttons rather than snap fasteners or velcro to reduce noise. Olfactory camouflage is said to be rare; examples include ghillie suits, special garments for military snipers made from strips of hessian cloth, which are sometimes treated with mud and even manure to give them an "earthy" smell to cover the smell of the sniper. Magnetic camouflage in the form of "degaussing" coils has been used since the Second World War to protect ships from magnetic mines and other weapons with magnetic sensors. Horizontal coils around the whole or parts of the ship generate magnetic fields to "cancel out" distortions to the Earth's magnetic field created by the ship. History: Reconnaissance and riflemen: Ship camouflage was occasionally used in ancient times. Vegetius wrote in the 4th century that "Venetian blue" (bluish-green, like the sea) was used for camouflage in the years 56–54 BC during the Gallic Wars, when Julius Caesar sent his scout ships to gather intelligence along the coast of Britain. The bluish-green scout ships carried sailors and marines dressed in the same colour. In the Mughal Empire that ruled South Asia between the 16th and 18th centuries, the Mughal army frequently employed the use of camouflage in their military campaigns, foreshadowing the modern use of military camouflage in the 19th and 20th centuries. The emphasis on hand-to-hand combat, and the short range of weapons such as the musket, meant that recognition and cohesion were more important than camouflage in combat clothing well into the baroque period. The introduction of infantry weapons with longer range, especially the Baker rifle, opened up new roles which needed camouflaged clothing. In the colonial Seven Years' War (1756–1763), the rifle-armed Rogers' Rangers wore gray or green uniforms. John Graves Simcoe, one of the unit's later commanders, noted in 1784: Green is without comparison the best colour for light troops with dark accouterments; and if put on in the spring, by autumn it nearly fades with the leaves, preserving its characteristic of being scarcely discernible at a distance.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military camouflage

The emphasis on hand-to-hand combat, and the short range of weapons such as the musket, meant that recognition and cohesion were more important than camouflage in combat clothing well into the baroque period. The introduction of infantry weapons with longer range, especially the Baker rifle, opened up new roles which needed camouflaged clothing. In the colonial Seven Years' War (1756–1763), the rifle-armed Rogers' Rangers wore gray or green uniforms. John Graves Simcoe, one of the unit's later commanders, noted in 1784: Green is without comparison the best colour for light troops with dark accouterments; and if put on in the spring, by autumn it nearly fades with the leaves, preserving its characteristic of being scarcely discernible at a distance. The tradition was continued by British Rifle Regiments who adopted rifle green for the Napoleonic Wars. During the Peninsular War, Portugal fielded light infantry units known as Caçadores, who wore brown-jackets which helped conceal them. The brown color was considered to be more adequate for a concealment in the landscape of most of Portuguese regions, in general more arid than the greener landscapes of Central and Northern Europe. Other nations soon followed suit, dressing their rifle regiments and sometimes also light troops in suitable drab tones, usually variations of green or gray. The first introduction of drab general uniform was by the British Corps of Guides in India in 1848. Initially the drab uniform was specially imported from England, with one of the reasons being to "make them invisible in a land of dust". However, when a larger quantity was required the army improvised, using a local dye to produce uniform locally. This type of drab uniform soon became known as khaki (Urdu for dusty, soil-coloured) by the Indian soldiers, and was of a similar colour to a local dress of cotton coloured with the mazari palm. The example was followed by other British units during the mutiny of 1857, dying their white drill uniforms to inconspicuous tones with mud, tea, coffee or coloured inks. The resulting hue varied from dark or slate grey through light brown to off-white, or sometimes even lavender. This improvised measure gradually became widespread among the troops stationed in India and North-West Frontier, and sometimes among the troops campaigning on the African continent. Rifle fire: While long range rifles became the standard weapon in the 1830s, armies were slow to adapt their tactics and uniforms, perhaps as a result of mainly fighting colonial wars against less well armed opponents. Not until the First Boer War of 1880/81 did a major European power meet an opponent well equipped with and well versed in the use of modern long range repeating firearms, forcing an immediate change in tactics and uniforms. Khaki-coloured uniform became standard service dress for both British and British Indian Army troops stationed in British India in 1885, and in 1896 khaki drill uniform was adopted by British Army for the service outside of Europe in general, but not until the Second Boer War, in 1902, did the entire British Army standardise on khaki (officially known as "drab") for Service Dress. The US military, who had blue-jacketed rifle units in the Civil War, were quick to follow the British, going khaki in the same year. Russia followed, partially, in 1908. The Italian Army used grigio-verde ("grey-green") in the Alps from 1906 and across the army from 1909. The Germans adopted feldgrau ("field grey") in 1910. By the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, France was the only major power to still field soldiers dressed in traditional conspicuous uniforms. The First World War: The First World War was the first full scale industrial conflict fought with modern firearms. The first attempt at disruptive camouflaged garment for the French army was proposed in 1914 by the painter Louis Guingot, but was refused by the army, which nevertheless kept a sample of the clothing. In collaboration with a Russian chemist friend, Guingot had developed a process of painting on weather-resistant fabric before the war and had registered a patent for it. But the casualty rate on the Western Front forced the French to finally relinquish their blue coats and red trousers, adopting a grayish "horizon blue" uniform. The use of rapid firing machine guns and long range breech loading artillery quickly led to camouflaging of vehicles and positions. Artillery pieces were soon painted in contrasting bold colours to obscure their outlines. Another early trend was building observation trees, made of steel with bark camouflage. Such trees became popular with the British and French armies in 1916. The observation tree was invented by French painter Lucien-Victor Guirand de Scévola, who led the French army's camouflage unit, the first of its kind in any army. He also invented painted canvas netting to hide machine gun positions, and this was quickly taken up for hiding equipment and gun positions from 1917, 7 million square yards being used by the end of the war. The First World War also saw the birth of aerial warfare, and with it the need not only to conceal positions and vehicles from being spotted from the air, but also the need to camouflage the aircraft themselves. In 1917, Germany started using a lozenge camouflage covering Central Powers aircraft, possibly the earliest printed camouflage. A similarly disruptive splinter pattern in earth tones, Buntfarbenanstrich 1918, was introduced for tanks in 1918, and was also used on the Stahlhelm (steel helmet), becoming the first use of a standardized camouflage pattern for soldiers. Camoufleurs: In 1909 an American artist and amateur zoologist, Abbott Thayer published a book, Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom, which was widely read by military leaders, although his advocacy of countershading was unsuccessful, despite his patent for countershading submarines and surface ships. The earliest camouflage artists were members of the Post- Impressionist and Fauve schools of France. Contemporary artistic movements such as cubism, vorticism and impressionism also influenced the development of camouflage as they dealt with disrupting outlines, abstraction and colour theory.The French established a Section de Camouflage (Camouflage Department) at Amiens in 1915, headed by Lucien-Victor Guirand de Scévola. His camoufleurs included the artists Jacques Villon, André Dunoyer de Segonzac, Charles Camoin and André Mare. Camouflage schemes of the First World War and Interwar periods that employed dazzle patterns were often described as "cubist" by commentators, and Picasso claimed with typical hyperbole "Yes, it is we who made it, that is cubism". Most of the artists employed as camoufleurs were traditional representative painters, not cubists, but de Scévola claimed "In order to deform totally the aspect of the object, I had to employ the means that cubists use to represent it." Other countries soon saw the advantage of camouflage, and established their own units of artists, designers and architects. The British established a Camouflage Section in late 1916 at Wimereux, and the U.S. followed suit with the New York Camouflage Society in April 1917, the official Company A of 40th Engineers in January 1918 and the Women's Reserve Camouflage Corps. The Italians set up the Laboratorio di mascheramento in 1917. By 1918 de Scévola was in command of camouflage workshops with over 9,000 workers, not counting the camoufleurs working at the front itself. Norman Wilkinson who first proposed dazzle camouflage to the British military employed 5 male designers and 11 women artists, who by the end of the war had painted more than 2,300 vessels. French women were employed behind the lines of both the British and American armies, sewing netting to disguise equipment and designing apparel for soldiers to wear. From the Second World War: Printed camouflage for shelter halves was introduced for the Italian and German armies in the interwar period, the "splotchy" M1929 Telo mimetico in Italy and the angular Splittermuster 31 in Germany. During the War, both patterns were used for paratrooper uniforms for their respective countries. The British soon followed suit with a brush-stroke type pattern for their paratroopers' Denison smock, and the Soviets introduced an "amoeba" pattern overgarment for their snipers. Hugh Cott's 1940 book Adaptive Coloration in Animals systematically covered the different forms of camouflage and mimicry by which animals protect themselves, and explicitly drew comparisons throughout with military camouflage: The principle is one with many applications to modern warfare. In the Great War it was utilized by the Germans when they introduced strongly marked incidents of white or black tone to conceal the fainter contrasts of tone made by the sloping sides of overhead camouflage-screens, or roofing, as seen from the air. The same principle has, of course, a special application in any attempt to reduce the visibility of large objects of all kinds, such as ships, tanks, buildings, and aerodromes. Both British and Soviet aircraft were given wave-type camouflage paintwork for their upper surfaces throughout the war, while American ones remained simple two-colour schemes (different upper and under sides) or even dispensed with camouflage altogether. Italian and some Japanese aircraft wore sprayed-on spotted patterns.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military camouflage

Hugh Cott's 1940 book Adaptive Coloration in Animals systematically covered the different forms of camouflage and mimicry by which animals protect themselves, and explicitly drew comparisons throughout with military camouflage: The principle is one with many applications to modern warfare. In the Great War it was utilized by the Germans when they introduced strongly marked incidents of white or black tone to conceal the fainter contrasts of tone made by the sloping sides of overhead camouflage-screens, or roofing, as seen from the air. The same principle has, of course, a special application in any attempt to reduce the visibility of large objects of all kinds, such as ships, tanks, buildings, and aerodromes. Both British and Soviet aircraft were given wave-type camouflage paintwork for their upper surfaces throughout the war, while American ones remained simple two-colour schemes (different upper and under sides) or even dispensed with camouflage altogether. Italian and some Japanese aircraft wore sprayed-on spotted patterns. German aircraft mostly used an angular splint-pattern camouflage, but Germany experimented with different schemes, particularly in the later stages of the war. They also experimented with various spray-on camouflage patterns for tanks and other vehicles, while Allied vehicles remained largely uni-coloured. As they had volunteered in the first World War, women sewed camouflage netting, organizing formalized groups for the work in Australia, Britain, New Zealand and the United States who took part as camoufleurs during the second war. The British Middle East Command Camouflage Directorate, consisting mainly of artists recruited into the Royal Engineers, developed the use of camouflage for large-scale military deception. Operations combined the disguise of actual installations, vehicles and stores with the simultaneous display of dummies, whether to draw fire or to give a false idea of the strength of forces or likely attack directions. In Operation Bertram for the decisive battle at El Alamein, a whole dummy armoured division was constructed, while real tanks were disguised as soft-skinned transport using "Sunshield" covers. The capabilities so developed were put to use not only in the western desert, but also in Europe as in the Operation Bodyguard deception for the Invasion of Normandy, and in the Pacific campaign, as in the Battle of Goodenough Island. The introduction of strategic bombing led to efforts to camouflage airfields and strategic production centres. This form of positional camouflage could be quite elaborate, and even include false houses and cars. With the threat from nuclear weapons in the post-war era such elaborate camouflage was no longer seen as useful, as a direct hit would not be necessary with strategic nuclear weapons to destroy infrastructure. The Soviet Union's doctrine of military deception defines the need for surprise through means including camouflage, based on experiences such as the Battle of Kursk where camouflage helped the Red Army to overwhelm a powerful enemy. Application: Uniforms: The role of uniform is not only to hide each soldier, but also to identify friend from foe. Issue of the "Frogskin" uniforms to US troops in Europe during the Second World War was halted as it was too often mistaken for the disruptively patterned German uniform worn by the Waffen-SS. Camouflage uniforms need to be made and distributed to a large number of soldiers. The design of camouflage uniforms therefore involves a tradeoff between camouflaging effect, recognizability, cost, and manufacturability. Armies facing service in different theatres may need several different camouflage uniforms. Separate issues of temperate/jungle and desert camouflage uniforms are common. Patterns can to some extent be adapted to different terrains by adding means of fastening pieces of vegetation to the uniform. Helmets often have netting covers; some jackets have small loops for the same purpose. Being able to find appropriate camouflage vegetation or in other ways modify the issued battle uniform to suit the local terrain is an important skill for infantry soldiers. Countries in boreal climates often need snow camouflage, either by having reversible uniforms or simple overgarments. Land vehicles: The purpose of vehicle and equipment camouflage differs from personal camouflage in that the primary threat is aerial reconnaissance. The goal is to disrupt the characteristic shape of the vehicle, to reduce shine, and to make the vehicle difficult to identify even if it is spotted. Paint is the least effective measure, but forms a basis for other techniques. Military vehicles often become so dirty that pattern-painted camouflage is not visible, and although matte colours reduce shine, a wet vehicle can still be shiny, especially when viewed from above. Patterns are designed to make it more difficult to interpret shadows and shapes. The British Army adopted a disruptive scheme for vehicles operating in the stony desert of the North African Campaign and Greece, retrospectively known as the Caunter scheme. It used up to six colours applied with straight lines. The British Army's Special Air Service used pink as the primary colour on its desert-camouflaged Land Rover Series IIA patrol vehicles, nicknamed Pink Panthers; the colour had been observed to be indistinguishable from sand at a distance. Nets can be effective at defeating visual observation. Traditional camouflage nets use a textile 'garnish' to generate an apparent texture with a depth of shadow created beneath it, and the effect can be reinforced with pieces of vegetation. Modern nets tend to be made of a continuous woven material, which is easier to deploy over a vehicle and lack the "windows" between patches of garnish of traditional nets. Some nets can remain in place while vehicles move. Simple nets are less effective in defeating radar and thermal sensors. Heavier, more durable "mobile camouflage systems", essentially conformal duvets with thermal and radar properties, provide a degree of concealment without the delay caused by having to spread nets around a vehicle. Active camouflage for vehicles, using heated or cooled Peltier plates to match the infrared background, has been prototyped in industry but has not yet been put into production. Ships: Until the 20th century, naval weapons had a short range, so camouflage was unimportant for ships, and for the men on board them. Paint schemes were selected on the basis of ease of maintenance or aesthetics, typically buff upperworks (with polished brass fittings) and white or black hulls. Around the start of the 20th century, the increasing range of naval engagements, as demonstrated by the Battle of Tsushima, prompted the introduction of the first camouflage, in the form of some solid shade of gray overall, in the hope that ships would fade into the mist. First and Second World War dazzle camouflage, pioneered by English artist Norman Wilkinson, was used not to make ships disappear, but to make them seem smaller or faster, to encourage misidentification by an enemy, and to make the ships harder to hit. In the Second World War, the Royal Canadian Navy trialled a form of active camouflage, counter-illumination, using diffused lighting to prevent ships from appearing as dark shapes against a brighter sky during the night. It reduced visibility by up to 70%, but was unreliable and never went into production. After the Second World War, the use of radar made camouflage generally less effective. However, camouflage may have helped to protect US warships from Vietnamese shore batteries using optical rangefinders. Coastal patrol boats such as those of the Norwegian, Swedish and Indonesian navies continue to use terrestrial style disruptively patterned camouflage. Aircraft: Aircraft camouflage faces the challenge that an aircraft's background varies widely, according to whether the observer is above or below the aircraft, and with the background, e.g. farmland or desert. Aircraft camouflage schemes have often consisted of a light colour underneath and darker colours above. Other camouflage schemes acknowledge that aircraft may be seen at any angle and against any background while in combat, so aircraft are painted all over with a disruptive pattern or a neutral colour such as gray. Second World War maritime patrol aircraft such as the Consolidated PBY Catalina flying boat were painted white, as aircraft generally appear dark against the sky (including at night), and hence are least visible when painted in as light a colour as possible. The problem of appearing dark against the sky was explored in the U.S. Navy's Yehudi lights project in 1943, using counter-illumination to raise the average brightness of a plane, when seen head-on, from a dark shape to the same as the sky. The experiments worked, enabling an aircraft to approach to within 2 miles (3.2 km) before being seen, whereas aircraft without the lights were noticed 12 miles (19 km) away. The higher speeds of modern aircraft, and the reliance on radar and missiles in air combat have reduced the value of visual camouflage, while increasing the value of electronic "stealth" measures. Modern paint is designed to absorb electromagnetic radiation used by radar, reducing the signature of the aircraft, and to limit the emission of infrared light used by heat seeking missiles to detect their target. Further advances in aircraft camouflage are being investigated in the field of active camouflage. In fashion and art: Fashion and the "Dazzle Ball": The transfer of camouflage patterns from battle to exclusively civilian uses is not recent. Dazzle camouflage inspired a trend of dazzlesque patterns used on clothing in England, starting in 1919 with the "Dazzle Ball" held by Chelsea Arts Club. Those attending wore dazzle-patterned black and white clothing, influencing twentieth-century fashion and art via postcards (see illustration) and magazine articles. The Illustrated London News announced The scheme of decoration for the great fancy dress ball given by the Chelsea Arts Club at the Albert Hall, the other day, was based on the principles of 'Dazzle', the method of 'camouflage' used during the war in the painting of ships ... The total effect was brilliant and fantastic.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military camouflage

Further advances in aircraft camouflage are being investigated in the field of active camouflage. In fashion and art: Fashion and the "Dazzle Ball": The transfer of camouflage patterns from battle to exclusively civilian uses is not recent. Dazzle camouflage inspired a trend of dazzlesque patterns used on clothing in England, starting in 1919 with the "Dazzle Ball" held by Chelsea Arts Club. Those attending wore dazzle-patterned black and white clothing, influencing twentieth-century fashion and art via postcards (see illustration) and magazine articles. The Illustrated London News announced The scheme of decoration for the great fancy dress ball given by the Chelsea Arts Club at the Albert Hall, the other day, was based on the principles of 'Dazzle', the method of 'camouflage' used during the war in the painting of ships ... The total effect was brilliant and fantastic. Camouflage in art: While many artists helped to develop camouflage during and since World War I, the disparate sympathies of the two cultures restrained the use of "militaristic" forms other than in the work of war artists. Since the 1960s, several artists have exploited the symbolism of camouflage. For example, Andy Warhol's 1986 camouflage series was his last major work, including Camouflage Self-Portrait. Alain Jacquet created many camouflage works from 1961 to the 1970s. Ian Hamilton Finlay's 1973 Arcadia was a screenprint of a leafily-camouflaged tank, "an ironic parallel between this idea of a natural paradise and the camouflage patterns on a tank", as the Tate Collection describes it. Veruschka, the pseudonym of Vera von Lehndorff and Holger Trülzsch, created "Nature, Signs & Animals" and "Mimicry-Dress-Art" in 1970–1973. Thomas Hirschhorn made Utopia : One World, One War, One Army, One Dress in 2005. War protesters and fashionistas: In the US in the 1960s, military clothing became increasingly common (mostly olive drab rather than patterned camouflage); it was often found worn by anti-war protestors, initially within groups such as Vietnam Veterans Against the War but then increasingly widely as a symbol of political protest. Fashion often uses camouflage as inspiration – attracted by the striking designs, the "patterned disorder" of camouflage, its symbolism (to be celebrated or subverted), and its versatility. Early designers include Marimekko (1960s), Jean-Charles de Castelbajac (1975–), Stephen Sprouse (using Warhol prints, 1987–1988), and Franco Moschino (1986), but it was not until the 1990s that camouflage became a significant and widespread facet of dress from streetwear to high-fashion labels – especially the use of "faux-camouflage". Producers using camouflage in the 1990s and beyond include: John Galliano for Christian Dior, Marc Jacobs for Louis Vuitton, Comme des Garçons, Chanel, Tommy Hilfiger, Dolce & Gabbana, Issey Miyake, Armani, Yves Saint-Laurent. Companies closely associated with camouflage patterns include 6876, A Bathing Ape, Stone Island, Stüssy, Maharishi, mhi, Zoo York, Addict, and Girbaud, using and overprinting genuine military surplus fabric; others use camouflage patterns in bright colours such as pink or purple. Some, such as Emma Lundgren and Stüssy, have created their own designs or integrated camouflage patterns with other symbols. Restrictions: Some countries such as Barbados, Aruba, and other Caribbean nations have laws prohibiting camouflage clothing from being worn by non-military personnel, including tourists and children. Civilian possession of camouflage is still banned in Zimbabwe. See also: Camouflage (1944 film), World War II camouflage training film produced by the US Army Air Forces List of military clothing camouflage patterns Notes: References: Sources: External links: "Abbott Thayer's Camouflage Demonstrations: Countershading, Disruption and Background Picturing" Shipcamouflage.com Roy R. Behrens – Art and Camouflage: An Annotated Bibliography Guy Hartcup – Camouflage: A History of Concealment and Deception in War (1980) WWII War Department Field Manual FM 5-20B: Camouflage of Vehicles (1944) The Evolution of Tank Camouflage The Tank Museum Patterns compared Camouflage paint colours Cécile Coutin: Camouflage, in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War. John Ramm: [Hidden Talent: Graham Clilverd War Artist in Antique Collecting, September 2023, pp 24-27]

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military campaign

Definition: 1. A military campaign denotes the time during which a given military force conducts combat operations in a given area (often referred to as AO, area of operation). A military campaign may be executed by either a single Armed Service, or as a combined services campaign conducted by land, naval, air, cyber, and space forces. 2. The purpose of a military campaign is to achieve a particular desired resolution of a military conflict as its strategic goal. This is constrained by resources, geography and/or season. A campaign is measured relative to the technology used by the belligerents to achieve goals, and while in the pre-industrial Europe was understood to be that between the planting (late spring) and harvest times (late autumn), it has been shortened during the post-industrial period to a few weeks. However, due to the nature of campaign goals, usually campaigns last several months, or up to a year as defined by Trevor N. Dupuy. "A campaign is a phase of a war involving a series of operations related in time and space and aimed towards a single, specific, strategic objective or result in the war. A campaign may include a single battle, but more often it comprises a number of battles over a protracted period of time or a considerable distance, but within a single theatre of operations or delimited area. A campaign may last only a few weeks, but usually lasts several months or even a year". Conduct: Planning – the General Staff defining objectives, time, scope and cost of the campaign Executing – the coordination of forces and resources in logistic and combat operations Controlling – the monitoring of the progress of the campaign when compared to its baseline plan Concluding – acceptance or rejection of the campaign outcomes by the directing command structure Winter season: In premodern times, campaigns were usually interrupted during the winter season, during which the soldiers retreated into the winter quarters (or 'cantonments') to get through the coldest months with warmth and protection. For example, the ancient Romans had easily movable castra aestiva ('summer quarters', with leather tents) but more stationary castra hibera ('winter quarters', with wooden barracks). In favourable weather and with proper equipment and supplies, however, military campaigns could be extended from the 'campaigning season' into winter in an attempt to catch the enemy off-guard. For example, in the Flanders campaign, French general Jean-Charles Pichegru unexpectedly crossed the frozen Great Rivers during the harsh winter of 1794–95, and conquered the Dutch Republic. But ill-prepared winter campaigns often had disastrous consequences due to high mortality amongst the soldiers; the most notorious example of this is the French invasion of Russia by Napoleon (24 June – 14 December 1812). Therefore, army commanders sought to take into account the need to return their troops to their winter quarters, or establish new winter quarters in a secure location, well before the winter set in, so as to not leave their soldiers vulnerable to the enemy nor the elements. Evaluation: The success of a military campaign is evaluated based on the degree of achievement of planned goals and objectives through combat and noncombat operations. That is determined when one of the belligerent military forces defeats the opposing military force within the constraints of the planned resource, time and cost allocations. The manner in which a force terminates its operations often influences the public perception of the campaign's success. A campaign may end in conquest, and be followed by the transition of military authority to a civil authority and the redeployment of forces, or a permanent installation of a military authority in the occupied area. Military campaigns, inside and outside defined wars, may exceed the original or even revised planning parameters of scope, time and cost. Such stalled campaigns, for example the western front in World War I, were formerly called "stalemates" but in the late 20th century the metaphor of a quagmire was often applied, and "frozen conflict" in the 21st. Such a situation may arise of various factors such as: a small hope for victory poorly defined objectives no clear exit strategy See also: General Military operations other than war – concept that encompass the use of military capabilities across the range of military operations short of war. Campaign desk – used by officers and their staffs in rear areas during a military campaign. Military strategy – collective name for planning the conduct of warfare. War cycles – the theory that wars happen in cycles. Military decorations Campaign medal – a military decoration which is awarded to a member of the military who serves in a designated military operation or performs duty in a geographical theater. Campaign clasp – an attachment to a military award consisting of a metal bar which is pinned to the upper cloth portion of an award medal. Campaign streamer – a long streamer attached to the headpiece of a military flag, denoting participation of that military service in a particular campaign. Lists and examples List of wars – contains military campaigns. List of battles – part of larger military campaigns. List of sieges – part of larger military campaigns. References: Sources: Dupuy, T.N., Understanding war: History and Theory of Combat, Leo Cooper, London, 1992

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military deception

Definition: Many standard military activities can be considered deceptive, but not deception. For example, a unit may move into an assembly area to complete organizing and rehearsing prior to a mission. It is a standard deceptive tactic to camouflage the vehicles, equipment and personnel in the assembly area with the intent of confusing the enemy. Military deception is more complex than simple deceptive activities, with a unit deliberately planning and carrying out an elaborate effort that will cause a targeted adversary decision maker to take an action that is detrimental to the adversary and beneficial to the side employing deception. Types: Deception can be accomplished through either increasing or decreasing an adversary's understanding of the operating environment. Ambiguity increasing deception is intended to sow confusion in the mind of the enemy decision maker by presenting multiple possible friendly courses of action. Because the adversary does not know which is true, his reactions are delayed or paralyzed, which gives the friendly side an advantage. With ambiguity decreasing deception, the friendly side intends to make the adversary certain of the friendly course of action — certain, but wrong. As a result, the adversary will misallocate time, personnel, or resources, which enables the friendly side to obtain an advantage. The Operation Bodyguard deception in World War II can be viewed as an ambiguity increasing deception that over time became ambiguity decreasing. Initially, the aim was to increase confusion among German planners and leaders by presenting the possibilities of Allied invasions at the Pas-de-Calais and Normandy in France, as well as the Balkans, southern France, and Norway. Eventually, the deception increased certainty on the German side by causing them to conclude that Calais was the real invasion site. When the Allies attacked at Normandy, they did so with the advantage of surprise. Tactics: Military deception may take place at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of warfare. The five basic tactics include: Diversion Use of feints, demonstrations, displays, or ruses to draw the enemy's attention away from a friendly main effort and induce the enemy to concentrate resources at a time and place that is to the enemy's disadvantage. Example: On the night of 17–18 August 1943, the Royal Air Force carried out Operation Hydra, the bombing of a World War II rocket research center at Peenemünde, a German town on the Baltic Sea. Over a period of time, the British had conditioned the Germans to expect and respond to attacks on Berlin by sending de Havilland Mosquito bombers along the same route towards the city. When the British executed Operation Hydra, the Germans believed eight Mosquitoes flying towards Berlin were the vanguard of yet another attack on the same target. As a result of this diversion, the Germans deployed the majority of their fighter aircraft over Berlin, which gave the British an advantage over Peenemünde. Feint An offensive action involving force-on-force contact with the adversary which deceives the adversary as to the location and/or time of the friendly side's main effort. A feint will cause the enemy to concentrate resources at an incorrect time and location. A series of feints will condition the enemy to friendly activities in the same location, causing the enemy to lower their guard or respond ineffectively to the friendly main effort. Example: In May 1940, Nazi Germany's Army Group B attacked the Netherlands and Belgium. At the same time, Army Group A invaded France by attacking through the Ardennes towards the city of Sedan. Army Group B's attack was a feint intended to disguise Germany's main effort from British and French military leaders. Demonstration A demonstration presents a show of force similar to a feint, but avoids actual force-on-force contact with the adversary. The intent of a demonstration is for the adversary to incorrectly determine the time and location of the friendly main effort, which gives the friendly side an advantage by causing the adversary to incorrectly allocate resources, move to the wrong location, or fail to move. Example: During the Peninsula campaign of the American Civil War, Union commander George B. McClellan believed he faced a stronger Confederate force commanded by John B. Magruder than he actually did. Magruder reinforced McClellan's perception with numerous demonstrations, including parading his soldiers where they could be viewed by Union observers, concealing them as they moved back to the start point, then parading them again within sight of McClellan's observers. McClellan concluded that he was outnumbered and decided to retreat. Ruse The deliberate exposure to the enemy of false information that causes the enemy to reach an incorrect conclusion about friendly intentions and capabilities. A ruse is a trick of warfare that relies on guile to contribute to a larger deception plan. Example: The creation of the fictional Major William Martin ("The Man Who Never Was") as a British officer carrying important World War II battle plans. As part of the Operation Mincemeat deception that concealed the location of the planned Allied invasion of Sicily, the Allies intended for the Nazis to acquire the false documents, which indicated a planned Allied invasion of Greece and the Balkans, and then incorrectly allocate troops and materiel. Display The static portrayal of activity, troops, or equipment. A display is intended to deceive the adversary's visual observation capability, causing him to believe the friendly force is in a location other than where it is, that it has a capacity or capability it does not possess, or that it does not have a capacity or capability that it does possess. Example: The Allied use of "sunshields" in Operation Bertram and inflatable decoys in Operation Bodyguard during World War II to deceive the enemy as to the size, location and objectives of Allied forces. These basic deception tactics are often used in combination with each other as part of a larger deception plan. Legality: Adherents to Protocol I (1977) of the Geneva Conventions agree not to engage in acts of perfidy during the conduct of warfare. Perfidious conduct is a deceitful action in which one side promises to act in good faith with the intention of breaking that promise to gain an advantage. Examples include one side raising a flag of truce to entice an enemy to come into the open and take them as prisoners of war, then opening fire on the uncovered adversary. Additional examples include misusing protected signs and symbols, such as the red cross, crescent, and crystal, to conceal weapons and ammunition by making them appear to be a medical facility. Axioms, maxims, and principles: The development of modern military deception doctrine has led to the codification of several rules and maxims. In U.S. doctrine, three of the most important are expressed as Magruder's Principle, the Jones' Dilemma, and Care in the Placement of Deceptive Material (Avoid Windfalls). Magruder's Principle: Named for Confederate general John B. Magruder, the principle asserts that it is easier to convince a target into holding on to a pre-existing belief than it is to convince a target of something it does not believe. Examples include the Allies of World War II making use in the Operation Mincemeat deception of the pre-existing German belief that Greece and the Balkans would be their next invasion target after North Africa, when the Allies actually intended to invade Sicily. Jones' Dilemma: Named for British scientist Reginald Victor Jones, who played an important role in the Allied effort during World War II, the Jones dilemma indicates that the greater the number of intelligence and information gathering and transmitting resources available to the deception target, the more difficult it is to deceive the target. Conversely, the more of the target's intelligence and information systems that are manipulated in a deception plan or denied to the target, the more likely the target is to believe the deception. One reason the World War II Operation Bodyguard deception was accepted as true on the German side is that Germany's ability to acquire information about activities in England was limited, enabling the Allies to manipulate the few German intelligence gathering resources that were available. Avoid Windfalls: If a deception target obtains deceptive information too easily ("too good to be true"), the target is unlikely to act on it and the deception will fail. This requires deception planners to take care in placing deceptive information so that it will appear to have been acquired in a seemingly natural manner. The deception target is then able to assemble details from multiple sources into a coherent, believable, but untrue story. The best deception plans co-opt the enemy's skepticism through requiring enemy participation, either by expending time and resources in obtaining the deceptive information, or by devoting significant effort to interpreting it. In an example of valid information being dismissed as a windfall, early in World War II a plane carrying German officers to Cologne became lost in bad weather and landed in Belgium. Before being arrested by Belgian authorities, the Germans attempted to burn the papers they were carrying, which included copies of the actual invasion plans for Belgium and the Netherlands. Belgian authorities discounted this true information as false because of the ease with which they obtained it. Multiple Forms of Surprise: Friendly events about which an adversary can be deceived are described in the mnemonic SALUTE-IS, which stands for Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment, Intent, and Style. The maxim indicates that the more of these categories the friendly side can deceive the adversary about, the more likely the adversary is to believe the deception. Conversely, if there are plans and activities about which the adversary is already aware, attempting to deceive him about them is unlikely to succeed. In Operation Bodyguard, the Germans knew there would be an invasion on the coast of France, that it would happen in 1944, and that it would be based in England. They did not know the exact date and the exact location.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military deception

Belgian authorities discounted this true information as false because of the ease with which they obtained it. Multiple Forms of Surprise: Friendly events about which an adversary can be deceived are described in the mnemonic SALUTE-IS, which stands for Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment, Intent, and Style. The maxim indicates that the more of these categories the friendly side can deceive the adversary about, the more likely the adversary is to believe the deception. Conversely, if there are plans and activities about which the adversary is already aware, attempting to deceive him about them is unlikely to succeed. In Operation Bodyguard, the Germans knew there would be an invasion on the coast of France, that it would happen in 1944, and that it would be based in England. They did not know the exact date and the exact location. The Allies concentrated their deception on the SALUTE-IS details the Germans did not know about, and did not attempt to deceive them about what they already knew. Planning process: The doctrine for planning deception has been codified over time. In the U.S. military, this doctrine begins with understanding the deception target's cognitive process. Expressed as "See-Think-Do", this understanding of the adversary considers what information has to be conveyed to the target through what medium for the target to develop the perception of the situation that will cause the enemy to take an action beneficial to the friendly side. In the planning process, "See-Think-Do" is considered in reverse order—what does the friendly side want the enemy to do as a result of the deception, what perceptions will the target have to form to take the action, and what information needs to be transmitted to the target through which medium so that the target will develop the desired perception. As an example, the intent for Operation Bodyguard was for Germany to allocate forces away from Normandy ("Do"). The perception the Allies wanted to create in the mind of the deception target (Hitler) was that the Allies were planning to invade at Calais ("Think"). The information the Allies conveyed to the target to create the perception included the false radio traffic, dummy equipment displays, and deceptive command messages of the fictional First United States Army Group ("See"). History: Ancient Egypt: According to a story from an ancient Egyptian papyrus, in about 1450 BC, an Egyptian army under Pharaoh Thutmose III and his general Djehuty besieged the Caananite city of Yapu (later Joppa and now Jaffa). Unable to gain entry, they resorted to deception. Djehuty hid several soldiers in baskets and had the baskets delivered to the town with the message that the Egyptians were admitting defeat and sending tribute. The people of Yapu accepted the gift and celebrated the end of the siege. Once inside the city, the hidden soldiers emerged from the baskets, opened the city gates, and admitted the main Egyptian force. The Egyptians then conquered the city. Ancient Greece: The Iliad and The Odyssey, epic poems composed between the 9th and 6th centuries BC, are credited to the Ancient Greek author Homer. These poems contain details of the Trojan War, presumed by the Greeks to have been fought in approximately the 13th century BC. The Odyssey provides the details of the Trojan Horse, a successfully executed deception. After several years of stalemate, a Greek leader, Odysseus, devised a deception. Over three days, the Greeks constructed a hollow wooden horse, which they inscribed as an offering to the goddess Athena in prayer for safe return to their homes. The Greeks then pretended to depart the area around Troy, giving the impression that they had sailed for Greece. Rather than risk offending Athena, the Trojans brought the horse into the city. That night, Greek soldiers concealed inside the horse came out of their hiding place and opened the city gates. The main force of Greek soldiers who had actually remained nearby then entered the city and killed the inhabitants. Ancient Macedon: In 326 BC, the army of Macedon, which was led by Alexander the Great, had advanced through the Middle East to Asia, conquering numerous kingdoms along the way. Alexander planned for battle against the forces of Porus, the king of the region of Pakistan and India that is now Punjab. To confront Porus, Alexander needed to cross the Hydaspes River. Porus used the terrain to his advantage and arranged his forces to prevent Alexander from crossing the river at the most likely fording point. Leading up to the battle, Alexander scouted several alternative fords, but Porus moved each time to counter him. Alexander eventually located a suitable crossing point approximately 17 miles north of his base. He then led a portion of his army to the crossing site, while his subordinate Craterus kept the entire army's campfires burning within sight of Porus and feigned several river crossings that Porus was able to observe. With Porus distracted, Alexander successfully led his detachment across the river, then marched south to engage in battle. In the Battle of the Hydaspes, Alexander's army had the element of surprise and quickly defeated Porus' troops, while sustaining relatively few casualties on the Macedonian side. Having conquered Porus' kingdom, Alexander then allowed Porus to rule it as one of Alexander's satraps. Ancient China: In 341 BC, troops under the general Sun Bin of the state of Qi faced battle with the forces of the state of Wei. Knowing that Wei regarded the army of Qi as inferior and cowardly, Sun Bin decided to use Wei's perception to his advantage. When Qi's forces invaded Wei, Sun Bin ordered them to light 100,000 camp fires on the first night. On the second night, they lit 50,000. On the third, 30,000. Sun Bin's deception caused the Wei forces led by general Pang Juan to believe Qi faced mass desertions. Rushing to attack what they believed to be an inferior army, the Wei forces assaulted Qi's troops at a narrow gorge, not knowing Sun Bin's soldiers had prepared it as an ambush site. When Pang Juan's troops reached the gorge they observed that a sign had been posted. Lighting a torch to see the message, the Wei commander read "Pang Juan dies beneath this tree". The lighting of the torch was the signal for Qi to initiate the ambush. Sun Bin's army quickly routed Pang Juan's and Pang Juan committed suicide. Another well-known deceptive measure from ancient China has come to be known as the Empty Fort Strategy. Employed several times in numerous conflicts, the best-known example is a fictional one contained in a historical novel from the 1320s AD, Romance of the Three Kingdoms. This work, which contains embellished tales of actual Chinese history from 169 to 280 AD, includes the story of general Zhuge Liang of Shu Han employing the Empty Fort Strategy. As recounted in the novel's description of Zhuge Liang's Northern Expeditions, an actual historical event, the forces of general Sima Yi of Cao Wei arrived at Zhuge Liang's location, the city of Xicheng, while the bulk of Zhuge Liang's army was deployed elsewhere. Zhuge Liang instructed the few troops he had on hand to pretend to be townspeople and told them to perform tasks which would make them visible to Sima Yi, including sweeping the town's streets. Zhuge Liang ordered Xichneg's gates to be opened, then took up a visible position on a viewing platform, playing his Guqin while flanked by only two pages. Because Zhuge Liang's reputation as a military leader was so great, Sima Yi assumed Zhuge Liang had prepared an ambush, so he declined to enter Xicheng. Zhuge Liang's deception saved the town and prevented the few soldiers he had with him from being massacred or taken prisoner. Ancient Carthage: During the Second Punic War, the Carthaginian general Hannibal employed deception during the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC. In preparing to face a Roman force led by Lucius Aemilius Paullus and Gaius Terentius Varro, Hannibal had 40,000 soldiers, as compared to the over 80,000 that had been amassed by Rome. To overcome the Roman advantage in numbers, Hannibal placed his less experienced and disciplined Gauls in the center of his formation, arranged to bulge out towards the Romans. On either side of his line, Hannibal positioned his experienced and disciplined Libyan and Gaetuli infantry. Hannibal intended for the Gauls to give way to the advancing Romans, with the center of his line bending but not breaking. Seeing the Gauls appear to retreat, the Romans would advance into the bowl shape or sack created by the bending of Hannibal's line. Once inside the sack, the African infantry positioned on the left and right would wheel inwards and attack the Roman flanks. In combination with the Carthaginian cavalry, the infantry on the flanks would continue moving until they encircled the Romans and could attack their rear. The battle unfolded as Hannibal had envisioned. Only 10,000 Romans escaped, with the rest either killed or captured. The battle came to be seen as evidence of Hannibal's genius for tactical generalship, while it was among the worst defeats suffered by Ancient Rome. Ancient Rome: During the Gallic Wars, in 52 BC Roman commander Julius Caesar attempted to engage the forces of tribal leader Vercingetorix in open battle in what is now central France.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military deception

Seeing the Gauls appear to retreat, the Romans would advance into the bowl shape or sack created by the bending of Hannibal's line. Once inside the sack, the African infantry positioned on the left and right would wheel inwards and attack the Roman flanks. In combination with the Carthaginian cavalry, the infantry on the flanks would continue moving until they encircled the Romans and could attack their rear. The battle unfolded as Hannibal had envisioned. Only 10,000 Romans escaped, with the rest either killed or captured. The battle came to be seen as evidence of Hannibal's genius for tactical generalship, while it was among the worst defeats suffered by Ancient Rome. Ancient Rome: During the Gallic Wars, in 52 BC Roman commander Julius Caesar attempted to engage the forces of tribal leader Vercingetorix in open battle in what is now central France. Vercingetorix kept the River Elave (now Allier) between Caesar's forces and his own. His troops destroyed or removed the bridges and mirrored the movements of Caesar's troops, preventing Caesar from crossing the river. Caesar responded by hiding forty of his sixty cohorts and arranging the remaining twenty to give the appearance of sixty as viewed from the opposite riverbank. The twenty cohorts continued to march along the river, and Vercingetorix's troops continued to mirror their movements. Caesar then led the forty hidden cohorts back to a repairable bridge, had it fixed, led his troops across, and sent for the other twenty cohorts to rejoin him. Now on the same side of the river as Vercingetorix, Caesar was able to engage the Gallic tribes in battle as he intended. Mongol Empire: The Mongol Empire frequently used deception to aid its military success. A favored tactic was to exaggerate the size of their army, which would cause their enemies to surrender or flee. When he fought the Naimans in 1204, Chinggis Khan ordered his soldiers to light five campfires each, giving the impression of a more numerous army. In 1258 Möngke Khan invaded Sichuan with 40,000 soldiers, and spread rumors of 100,000 in an effort to intimidate his enemy. When confronting numerically superior forces, the Mongols often sent troops behind their own lines to raise dust with branches tied to their horses' tails, which created the impression that reinforcements were en route. Mongol soldiers had more than one horse each, and to exaggerate the size of their army, they would compel prisoners or civilians to ride their spare horses within sight of the enemy, or mount dummies on their spare horses. To make their forces appear smaller, the Mongols would ride in single file, minimizing dust and making the hoofprints of their horses more difficult to count. Mongol armies also used the feigned retreat. A typical tactic was to deploy the mangudai, a vanguard unit that would charge the enemy, break up its formation, and then fall back in an attempt to draw the enemy into a position more favorable to the Mongols. Middle Ages: Examples of deception occurred during the Crusades. In 1271, Sultan Baybars captured the formidable Krak des Chevaliers by handing the besieged knights a letter, supposedly from their commander, ordering them to surrender. The letter was fake, but the knights believed it was genuine and capitulated. In 1401, during the Glyndŵr Rising, the Tudors of Wales were seeking a revocation of the price that Henry Percy had placed on their heads. After deciding to capture Percy's Conwy Castle, one member of the Tudor faction posed as a carpenter, gained access, and then admitted his compatriots. The successful deception was in part responsible for the creation of England's Tudor dynasty. Renaissance: In an event from the early 1480s that was recounted in Washington Irving's Conquest of Granada, during the Granada War, the Alhama de Granada was besieged by Moors. During the siege, a portion of the fortress' outer wall was destroyed after the earth beneath it was washed away in a violent storm. To conceal the breach, the Conde de Tendilla, leader of the Spanish defenders, directed the erection of a cloth screen. The screen deceived the Moors because it was painted to resemble stone, and no Moorish besiegers ventured close enough to spot the fakery. The wall was repaired over the next several days, and the Moors did not learn of the gap in the Alhama's defenses. Henry VIII of England led troops on the European mainland during the War of the League of Cambrai. On 4 September 1513, Henry's forces began to besiege the city of Tournai in what is now Belgium. The site of a thriving tapestry industry and home to many well-known painters, Tournai prolonged the siege by using painted canvas that resembled trenchworks to exaggerate the strength of its defenses. As a result of this deception, the city held out for several days longer than expected and obtained favorable terms when it surrendered. Colonial Africa: In 1659, the kingdom of Denmark–Norway constructed Fort Christiansborg near what is now Accra in Ghana. Used to control commerce in slaves, as well as raw materials including gold and ivory, the site changed hands several times between Denmark–Norway, Portugal, and Sweden, sometimes by force, sometimes by purchase. In 1692, Nana Asamani, the king of the Akwamu people, planned to capture the fort from Denmark–Norway. Disguising himself as a cook and interpreter, he obtained work at the fort, where over the next year he became proficient in the Danish language and conducted reconnaissance to learn about the activities of the facility's occupants and the people with whom they traded. After gaining familiarity with Fort Christiansborg's occupants and operations, in 1693 Asamani informed the Danish traders who occupied it about a group of Akwamu who desired to purchase weapons and ammunition, and suggested they were so anxious to buy that the Danes should inflate their prices. Lured by the prospect of large profits, the Danes bartered with the 80 Akwamu that Asamani had brought to the fort. When the Danes allowed the Akwamu to inspect rifles and prepare to test-fire them, the Akwamu instead used the guns to commence an attack on the Danes. Caught by surprise, the Danes were quickly overpowered and ejected from Fort Christiansborg. The Akwamu occupied the post for a year before Asamani agreed to sell it back to Denmark–Norway. Asamani kept the keys as a trophy, and they are still in the possession of the Akwamu. French and Indian War: During the Seven Years' War in North America (known in the United States as the French and Indian War), British commander James Wolfe attempted throughout the summer of 1759 to force French commander Louis-Joseph de Montcalm to come out of his well-defended position in Quebec City. When artillery fire that destroyed most of the city did not produce the desired effect, Wolfe employed a deception strategy called "uproar east, attack west" Wolfe ordered Admiral Charles Saunders to move the British fleet on the Saint Lawrence River to a position opposite one of Montcalm's main camps east of Quebec City. This demonstration gave the appearance of preparations for an upcoming attack. Montcalm was deceived, and moved troops to guard against a British assault from that location. Wolfe's soldiers at Quebec City capitalized on the favorable balance of forces created by the deception. First, they opened a road from the riverbank to the city heights. Next, they deployed into battle formation on a farmer's field near the city walls. Caught by surprise, Montcalm knew he would not be able to withstand a siege and had no choice but to fight. On 13 September 1759, the French were decisively beaten in the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. The loss of Quebec led to defeat in the war and France was forced to cede Canada to the British. American Revolution: Siege of Boston: As head of the Continental Army, George Washington successfully used deception to equalize the odds in the fight against the larger, better-equipped, and better-trained British army and its mercenary allies. During the Siege of Boston from April 1775 to March 1776, the newly organized Continental Army suffered from numerous equipment and supply shortages. Among the most critical was a lack of gunpowder, which was so acute that in a battle, Washington's troops would be able to fire no more than nine bullets per man. To conceal the lack of gunpowder from the British, Washington's quartermaster soldiers filled gunpowder casks with sand and shipped them from Providence, Rhode Island to the Continental Army's depots. The deception fooled British spies, and British commanders decided not to risk an attack during the siege. Battle of Long Island: After the Patriot defeat at the Battle of Long Island in late August 1776, Washington's forces retreated to Brooklyn Heights, with a superior British force surrounding them on three sides and their backs to the East River. The British expected Washington would find his position untenable and surrender. Washington instead arranged for a flotilla of small boats to ferry his 9,000 troops across the river to the relative safety of Manhattan Island. Moving under cover of darkness, Washington's troops withdrew unit by unit to avoid the appearance that a general retreat was taking place.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military deception

To conceal the lack of gunpowder from the British, Washington's quartermaster soldiers filled gunpowder casks with sand and shipped them from Providence, Rhode Island to the Continental Army's depots. The deception fooled British spies, and British commanders decided not to risk an attack during the siege. Battle of Long Island: After the Patriot defeat at the Battle of Long Island in late August 1776, Washington's forces retreated to Brooklyn Heights, with a superior British force surrounding them on three sides and their backs to the East River. The British expected Washington would find his position untenable and surrender. Washington instead arranged for a flotilla of small boats to ferry his 9,000 troops across the river to the relative safety of Manhattan Island. Moving under cover of darkness, Washington's troops withdrew unit by unit to avoid the appearance that a general retreat was taking place. The wheels of supply wagons and gun carriages were wrapped in rags to muffle their noise, and troops ordered to remain silent to avoid alerting the nearby British. Rear guard units kept campfires blazing through the night. These measures fooled British scouts into thinking the Patriot army was still on Brooklyn Heights. A morning fog obscured visibility, which helped the Continentals complete their retreat, and all 9,000 were safely ferried across the river. When the British advanced, they were surprised to find the American positions completely empty. Battle of Trenton: Prior to the Battle of Trenton on Christmas Day 1776, Washington used a spy, John Honeyman to gain information about the positions of Britain's Hessian mercenaries. Posing as a Loyalist butcher and weaver, Honeyman traded with British and Hessian troops and acquired useful intelligence. At the same time, he aided Washington's plan by spreading disinformation that convinced the British and Hessians that Continental Army morale was low and an end-of-year attack against British positions unlikely. Honeyman's deceptive information enabled Washington to gain the element of surprise, and his troops routed the stunned Hessians. Battle of Princeton: After the Battle of Trenton, the British dispatched a large army under General Charles Cornwallis to chase down Washington's smaller force. At the 2 January 1777 Battle of the Assunpink Creek, the Continental troops under Washington successfully repulsed three British attacks on their positions. Darkness ended the British attacks and they planned to resume the following morning. That night, Washington again resorted to the same deceptive tactics he had used in Brooklyn, including muffling the wheels of wagons and gun carriages to reduce noise, and leaving a rear guard to keep campfires burning. The British were again fooled, and Washington was able to move his army into a position from which he defeated the British at the Battle of Princeton on 3 January. Siege of Fort Stanwix: In August 1777, the first Patriot attempt to relieve the Siege of Fort Stanwix, New York was blocked by the British as the result of the Battle of Oriskany. A second attempt, led by Benedict Arnold succeeded in part because of a successful effort to deceive the British besiegers. Arnold dispatched a messenger, Hon Yost Schuyler to the British lines. Schuyler was a Loyalist and regarded by the British army's Mohawk allies as a prophet because of his strange dress and conduct. To ensure his good conduct, Arnold held Schuyler's brother as a hostage. Upon reaching the British positions outside Fort Stanwix, Schuyler informed the Mohawk that Arnold's relief column was nearer than it was, and that it was much larger than it actually was. The Mohawk initially disbelieved Schuyler, but assumed he was telling the truth after other American Indian messengers sent by Arnold began to arrive with the same information. The Mohawk decided to leave, forcing British commander Barry St. Leger to order a retreat. The end of the siege also ended British attempts to control the Mohawk Valley. Battle of Cowpens: In the fall of 1780, Continental Army general Nathanael Greene, commander of the Southern Department, carried out a harassment campaign against the British in North and South Carolina. One of Greene's subordinates, Daniel Morgan, commanded a force of approximately 600, and was tasked with harassing the enemy in the backcountry of South Carolina. In January 1781, as a British force commanded by Banastre Tarleton closed in on Morgan near Cowpens, South Carolina on the Broad River, he opted to fight rather than risk being attacked while attempting to cross the water. Knowing the British regarded Patriot militia as inferior, Morgan used this perception to his advantage by arranging his troops in three lines. The first was sharpshooters, who provided harassing fire and attempted to pick off British officers. The sharpshooters would then fall back to the second line, which would consist of militiamen. The militia would fire two volleys, then feign a rout and pretend to flee. If the British believed they had caused a panic in the militiamen, they would charge forward. But instead of catching up to the fleeing militia, they would run into the third line—Continental Army soldiers commanded by John Eager Howard. As a reserve, Morgan had a small Continental cavalry force commanded by William Washington. Morgan's deception proved decisive. At the Battle of Cowpens on 17 January 1781, the British under Tarleton launched a frontal assault. The militia feigned retreat, and Tarleton's troops charged forward. As planned, they were met by Howard's troops, then surprised by Washington's cavalry charging into their flanks. The British lost over 100 killed, over 200 wounded, and over 500 captured. Morgan's command sustained only 12 killed and 60 wounded. French Revolutionary Wars: Napoleon Bonaparte made significant use of deception during his campaigns. At the 1796 Battle of Lodi, he used deception to achieve a successful crossing of the River Po. As a diversion, Napoleon mounted a token crossing attempt against a strong Austrian force under Johann Peter Beaulieu. Meanwhile, the bulk of his force moved upriver and obtained an uncontested bridgehead at Piacenza. Once it had crossed the river, Napoleon's force attacked the enemy's rear guard in a tactic he referred to as manoeuvre sur les derrières ("maneuvering behind"). War of the First Coalition: During the War of the First Coalition, France attempted an invasion of Britain. During the February 1797 Battle of Fishguard, Colonel William Tate an Irish-American commanding French and Irish troops, landed near Fishguard in Wales. English and Welsh militia and civilians under the command of John Campbell, 1st Baron Cawdor hastily assembled to defend the town. When discipline began to break down among Tate's troops and their attempted invasion slowed down, Tate asked for surrender terms that would permit his command to leave. Instead of offering terms, Cawdor demanded unconditional surrender. As Tate and his subordinates considered Cawdor's demands overnight, Cawdor backed up his bluff with several deceptive measures. According to local lore, these included having women in Traditional Welsh costumes and Welsh hats line the cliffs near the French camp. from a distance, the women appeared to be British soldiers in red coats and Shakos. Convinced that he was outnumbered, Tate surrendered and his troops were taken prisoner. First Barbary War: In October, 1803 the frigate USS Philadelphia ran aground off the North African port of Tripoli during the First Barbary War and was captured by the Tripolitan forces. In February 1804, a U.S. military detachment under the command of Stephen Decatur Jr., was assigned to retrieve the ship or destroy it to keep Tripoli from putting it into service. The raiding party deceived the Tripolitan authorities by sailing into Tripoli harbor aboard USS Intrepid, a captured Tripolitan ketch which they disguised as a Maltese merchant ship. The ship's Sicilian harbor pilot spoke to the Tripolitan authorities in Arabic, claimed the ship had lost its anchors in a storm, and sought permission to tie up next to the captured Philadelphia. Permission was granted and Decatur and his crew overwhelmed the small force guarding Philadelphia, using only swords and pikes to avoid gunshots that would alert authorities on shore of their presence. Unable to sail Philadelphia away, Decatur and his crew burned it, then safely escaped. War of 1812: First American Invasion of Canada: In July 1812, General William Hull was at Fort Detroit as the British fortified a defensive position across the Detroit River in Windsor, Ontario. Hull decided to move the British to Fort Malden, further away from Detroit, so that he could seize the defenses in Windsor. To implement his plan, Hull resorted to deception, which began when his troops collected all the boats and canoes they could find. On 11 July 1812, Hull sent some boats down the river to Springwells, south of Detroit, in full view of the British. At the same time, the American regiment commanded by Duncan McArthur marched from Detroit to Springwells, also observed by the British. With the British now anticipating an American crossing south of Detroit, a second American force moved north in the dark until they reached Bloody Run, a crossing point a mile and a half north of Fort Detroit and opposite the Ontario town of Sandwich. Finding no activity at Springwells, the British believed the Americans had already crossed the river and marched on Fort Malden.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military deception

Hull decided to move the British to Fort Malden, further away from Detroit, so that he could seize the defenses in Windsor. To implement his plan, Hull resorted to deception, which began when his troops collected all the boats and canoes they could find. On 11 July 1812, Hull sent some boats down the river to Springwells, south of Detroit, in full view of the British. At the same time, the American regiment commanded by Duncan McArthur marched from Detroit to Springwells, also observed by the British. With the British now anticipating an American crossing south of Detroit, a second American force moved north in the dark until they reached Bloody Run, a crossing point a mile and a half north of Fort Detroit and opposite the Ontario town of Sandwich. Finding no activity at Springwells, the British believed the Americans had already crossed the river and marched on Fort Malden. Assuming Fort Malden was vulnerable, the British troops in Sandwich marched south, and in the morning the Americans at Bloody Run crossed to Sandwich unopposed. After landing in Sandwich, the Americans then marched from Sandwich to Windsor and seized the British defensive works. Retaking the brig Nerina: In July 1812, the British warship HMS Belvidera captured the American brig Nerina, which had sailed for New York City from Newry, Ireland without knowing that war had been declared in June. Nerina's crew was transferred to a British ship, except for the captain, James Stewart, who remained on board with a British prize crew which intended to sail Nerina to Halifax, Nova Scotia so a prize court could adjudicate the British claim. When the British ship was out of sight, Stewart suggested to the prize master the propriety of opening the hatches to air out Nerina's hold. The master gave the order, and the fifty American passengers Stewart had hidden belowdecks before Nerina was boarded rushed out and retook the ship. Stewart's successful deception enabled him to resume command and sail Nerina to New London, Connecticut, which he reached on 4 August. Siege of Detroit: In a notable deception that occurred during the War of 1812's Siege of Detroit, British Major General Isaac Brock and Native American chief Tecumseh used a variety of tricks, including letters they allowed to be intercepted which exaggerated the size of their forces, disguising Brock's militia contingent as more fearsome regular army soldiers, and repeatedly marching the same body of Native Americans past U.S. observers to make it appear they were more numerous than they were. Though he had superior troop strength, the U.S. commander, Brigadier General William Hull, believed he faced overwhelming numbers of British regular troops and hordes of uncontrollable Indians. Fearing a massacre, in August 1812 Hull surrendered the town and the attached fort. Most of his militia were allowed to return home, while his regular army soldiers were held as prisoners of war. Capture of brigs Catharine and Rose: American Lieutenant John Downes was in command of Georgiana as part of Captain David Porter's naval force, which raided British shipping in the Galapagos chain. On 28 May 1813, lookouts on Georgiana spotted two British ships, Catharine and Rose, off James Island. Resorting to deception, Downes raised the British flag, which tricked the British whalers into thinking they were not under threat. When the Americans were within range they lowered a few boats filled with men, which rowed to Catharine and Rose and captured them without resistance. The British captains revealed to Downes that they had no idea of the attack until the Americans were already on deck. Capture of HMS Eagle: In 1813, the British Royal Navy continued to blockade America's major ports. The British flagship HMS Poictiers, commanded by Commodore J.B. Beresford maintained station just outside Sandy Hook on Lower New York Bay, supported by the schooner HMS Eagle. Eagle had a notorious reputation among local fishermen for seizing both fishing boat crews and the boats' valuable cargoes. John Percival of the United States Navy volunteered to end the threat, and acquired a fishing boat named Yankee. On the morning of 4 July 1813, he concealed 34 armed volunteers in the hold, while he and two volunteers stayed on deck dressed as fishermen. Percival then sailed Yankee as though it was departing on a fishing voyage. Eagle's commander spotted Yankee and sailed in close so he could order it to transfer the livestock it carried on deck to the nearby Poictiers. Percival pretended to comply, and when Eagle was less than ten feet away, he signaled his volunteers to launch a surprise attack by shouting "Lawrence!" in honor of slain U.S. Navy Captain James Lawrence. Percival's volunteers poured out on deck and began firing. Eagle's crew were taken by surprise and fled below deck. One of Eagle's crew struck her colors, thus surrendering to Yankee. Two British sailors were killed and another received mortal wounds, but there were no American casualties. Percival brought the captured Eagle into port and delivered his prisoners to New York City's Whitehall Street docks as thousands of Americans were celebrating Independence Day. Ambush at Black Swamp Road: In July 1813, Benjamin Forsyth, one of the company commanders in the American Regiment of Riflemen wanted to enlist the aid of Seneca warriors during planned military operations against the British near Newark, Ontario (now Niagara-on-the-Lake). Forsyth and the Seneca leaders agreed to work together to ambush the Mohawks who were allied with the British. American riflemen and Seneca warriors hid on both sides of the Black Swamp Road. A few Seneca horse riders rode out to gain the Mohawks' attention, then conducted a feigned retreat. After the Seneca horsemen passed the hidden American riflemen and Senecas, Forsyth blew his bugle as a signal. The concealed Americans and Senecas rose from their hiding places and fired into the pursuing Mohawks. Fifteen Mohawks were killed and thirteen surrendered, including a British interpreter. A few Mohawks escaped, while the Americans and their Seneca allies marched their prisoners back to American lines. Battle of Fort Stephenson: In August 1813, American Major George Croghan was in charge of 160 soldiers at Fort Stephenson, a base on the Sandusky River in what is now Sandusky County, Ohio which guarded a nearby supply depot. British commander Henry Procter arrived with a superior force that included at least 500 British regulars, 800 American Indians under Major Robert Dickson, and at least 2,000 more under Tecumseh. Procter met Croghan under a flag of truce and urged him to surrender, but Croghan refused. The British then bombarded the fort by artillery and gunboat, to little effect. Croghan returned fire with his single cannon, "Old Betsy" while frequently changing its position in the hopes that the British would believe he had more than one artillery piece. When Croghan's supply of ammunition ran low, he ordered his men to cease fire. Croghan deduced that the British were going to strike in full force at the northwestern angle of the fort, so he ordered his men to conceal "Old Betsy" in a blockhouse at that location. The next morning, the British feinted twice at the southern angle, then approached the northwest one. American gunners surprised them by uncovering "Old Betsy" and firing at point blank range, which destroyed the British column. Procter withdrew and sailed away. Procter reported British casualties as 23 killed, 35 wounded, and 28 missing. American casualties were only one killed and seven wounded. Croghan was celebrated as a national hero and promoted to lieutenant colonel. Ambush at Odelltown: On 28 June 1814, Benjamin Forsyth, commander of the American Regiment of Riflemen, advanced from Chazy, New York to Odelltown, Lower Canada intending to draw a British force of Canadians and American Indian allies into an ambush. Upon arriving at the British positions, Forsyth sent a few men forward as decoys to make contact. When the British responded, the American decoys conducted a feigned retreat, which successfully lured 150 Canadians and American Indian allies into the ambush site. During the ensuing fight, Forsyth needlessly exposed himself by stepping on a log to watch the attack and was shot and killed. Forsyth's riflemen, still hidden and now enraged over the death of their commander, rose from their covered positions and fired a devastating volley. The British were surprised by the ambush and retreated in confusion, leaving seventeen dead on the field. Forsyth was the only American casualty. Even though Forsyth was killed, his feigned retreat and ambush succeeded at inflicting heavy casualties on the British force. Battle of Lundy's Lane: In the July 1814 Battle of Lundy's Lane, American forces used deception at several critical points. When troops under Winfield Scott returned from attacks on British formations they were twice mistaken in the dark for a British unit and allowed to pass. In one incident, a British leader asked who was approaching by shouting "The 89th?" The Americans recognized the opportunity to pass unmolested and called back "The 89th!" In another event, American Captain Ambrose Spencer saw a unit approaching in the dark. He rode up and called out "What regiment is that?" "The Royal Scots, Sir!" a Scottish officer replied.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military deception

The British were surprised by the ambush and retreated in confusion, leaving seventeen dead on the field. Forsyth was the only American casualty. Even though Forsyth was killed, his feigned retreat and ambush succeeded at inflicting heavy casualties on the British force. Battle of Lundy's Lane: In the July 1814 Battle of Lundy's Lane, American forces used deception at several critical points. When troops under Winfield Scott returned from attacks on British formations they were twice mistaken in the dark for a British unit and allowed to pass. In one incident, a British leader asked who was approaching by shouting "The 89th?" The Americans recognized the opportunity to pass unmolested and called back "The 89th!" In another event, American Captain Ambrose Spencer saw a unit approaching in the dark. He rode up and called out "What regiment is that?" "The Royal Scots, Sir!" a Scottish officer replied. Spencer called out "Halt, Royal Scots!" and then rode off. Believing a superior officer had given them a command, the regiment stopped, then remained in place until a real British officer found them and gave them new orders. In a third incident, British soldier Shadrach Byfield reported that an individual in a company of hidden Americans impersonated a British officer and told the British troops opposing them to form up and stand tall in preparation for inspection. The British troops believed a superior officer was addressing them and stood, enabling the Americans to fire a volley, after which they escaped retaliation by scattering in the dark. Battle of Conjocta Creek: In August 1814, American Major Lodowick Morgan of the Regiment of Riflemen, who was based in Buffalo, New York, correctly deduced that the British were going to attack Buffalo from Canada by crossing the bridge at Conjocta Creek (also called Scajaquada). Morgan and 240 riflemen marched to the point where the road from Black Rock crossed the Conjocta. They sabotaged the bridge by pulling up a number of planks, then built breastworks at the south side. Afterwards, they continued on to Black Rock. Once at Black Rock, Morgan's troops marched back the way they came while playing music and making as much noise as possible to gain the attention of the British and make them believe the Americans were headed to Buffalo. Once out of sight, Morgan and his men marched secretly through the woods to occupy the breastworks they had constructed on the south bank of the creek. The unsuspecting British arrived at the bridge and discovered the sabotage. While they halted to consider their options, Morgan began the Battle of Conjocta Creek by blowing a whistle to signal his soldiers, who fired a devastating volley. The British sought cover on the north bank and fired back, but the American troops remained protected behind their breastworks. The British attempted an assault on the breastworks, which the Americans repulsed. The British then attempted a flanking maneuver, which the Americans also repulsed. Unable to proceed past the Conjocta, the British retreated back to Canada. The Americans lost two killed and eight wounded, while the British sustained twelve killed and twenty-one wounded. American Civil War: Peninsula campaign: In the American Civil War's Peninsula campaign, Union commander George B. McClellan was the victim of a deception executed by the forces under Confederate commander John B. Magruder during the 1862 Siege of Yorktown. Magruder, who had acted in and produced plays, used his knowledge of visual and audio effects to deceive McClellan into believing Magruder's force was larger than it was. These included placing straw dummy crewmen alongside Quaker guns—logs painted black to resemble cannons—in his defensive works. Magruder interspersed his Quaker guns with the few real cannons he possessed, making his artillery seem more numerous than it was. In addition, he used shouted orders and bugle calls to march his relatively small force of about 10,000 in front of Union positions until they were out of sight, then had them loop around unseen and march through the same area again, making his troop strength seem greater than it was. Magruder's elaborate charade convinced McClellan, who outnumbered Magruder by ten to one, that he faced a more formidable opponent than was actually the case, which caused him to delay attacking. McClellan's delay allowed Confederate reinforcements to arrive, causing him to retreat back to Washington, D.C. Vicksburg campaign: In early 1863, Union naval commander David Dixon Porter lost a new ironclad, USS Indianola after it ran aground on the Mississippi River near Vicksburg, Mississippi and was captured by Confederate forces. As the Confederates attempted to repair and refloat the damaged ship so they could use it against Porter's fleet, Porter executed a deception to thwart their effort. His men constructed a giant dummy ironclad from barges, barrels, and other materials that were on hand. Made to resemble a new, real ironclad, USS Lafayette (1848), the dummy was painted black to give it a sinister appearance and flew the Jolly Roger pirate flag. Porter's sailors floated the dummy, christened Black Terror, downstream at night, and it appeared impervious to Confederate shore battery fire. Exaggerated rumors about the seemingly indestructible super ship quickly spread to Vicksburg and reached salvage crews working on Indianola. In a panic, they halted their efforts, blew up Indianola, and abandoned the wreckage. When Black Terror ran aground and was inspected by Confederates, local newspapers roundly criticized military and naval commanders for being unable to tell the difference between a real warship and a fake. Second Boer War: During the Second Boer War, British commander Robert Baden-Powell made extensive use of deception during his October 1899 to May 1900 defense of Mafeking. After he occupied the town with a force of 1,500, Baden-Powell faced 8,000 Boers who intended to begin a siege. As the Boers advanced, Baden-Powell wrote a letter to a friend in Transvaal whom he knew had died, which contained news of the imminent approach of more British troops. Baden-Powell intended for the letter to be intercepted and when it fell into Boer hands, they believed it was real. As a result, they diverted 1,200 troops to guard the approaches against Baden-Powell's fictional reinforcements. Baden-Powell's troops also set up fake defensive works at a distance from the town itself, including one marked as his command post, which further diverted Boer attention. In addition, he had local residents execute deceptive tactics, including carrying boxes of sand labeled "mines" in places where they could be observed. Word of these supposed mines reached the Boers, and when they soon afterwards observed supposed minefields appear around the edge of the town, they assumed the danger was real. These deceptive measures held off a Boer attack, which allowed Baden-Powell time to improve Mafeking's defences. As a result of his effort, the British were able to hold out until reinforcements arrived and lifted the siege. World War I: Gallipoli campaign: During World War I, deception shifted from the tactical level to the strategic as modernized warfare and advances in technology increased the size and complexity of battlefield organizations. Several methods of deception were used by the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (Anzac) during its withdrawal from Gallipoli in Turkey, which was completed on 20 December 1915. As early as mid-November, artillery and sniper activity went silent for periods of time, giving the impression that the Anzacs were preparing to remain in the defense with limited resupply of ammunition during the upcoming winter. To cover the removal of the last troops, "drip rifles" were prepared to fire about 20 minutes after they were set, with a water can leaking into a second can that was tied to a rifle trigger. When the second can was full, the weight caused the unmanned rifle to fire. The sporadic firing created by this ruse convinced the Turks that the Anzac troops were still manning their defenses. In addition, Anzac troops used dummy artillery and mannequins to further enhance the impression that soldiers remained in their positions. As a result of these deceptive measures, both the main body of Anzac troops and the rear guard retreated unmolested. Given the failure of the Gallipoli effort from the Anzac perspective, the evacuation was considered the most successful part of the entire campaign. Western front: In March 1917, leaders of the German Army on the Western Front decided to withdraw from their positions in France to the Hindenburg Line, a 90-mile long defensive position that ran from Arras to Laffaux. With Germany unable to conduct an offensive because of personnel losses earlier in the war, commanders intended for unrestricted submarine warfare and strategic bombing to weaken the British and French, giving the German army time to recuperate. In addition, the move to the Hindenburg Line supported the plan of commanders Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff to shift the German focus to Russia and the Eastern Front. The withdrawal to the new defensive line would shorten Germany's front by 25 miles, enabling 13 divisions to be employed against the Russians. Under the plan code named Operation Alberich, the Germans abandoned their old positions in a staged series that began in late February.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military deception

Western front: In March 1917, leaders of the German Army on the Western Front decided to withdraw from their positions in France to the Hindenburg Line, a 90-mile long defensive position that ran from Arras to Laffaux. With Germany unable to conduct an offensive because of personnel losses earlier in the war, commanders intended for unrestricted submarine warfare and strategic bombing to weaken the British and French, giving the German army time to recuperate. In addition, the move to the Hindenburg Line supported the plan of commanders Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff to shift the German focus to Russia and the Eastern Front. The withdrawal to the new defensive line would shorten Germany's front by 25 miles, enabling 13 divisions to be employed against the Russians. Under the plan code named Operation Alberich, the Germans abandoned their old positions in a staged series that began in late February. The majority of their movement occurred between 16 and 21 March, and the full German withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line was completed on 5 April. The German withdrawal included numerous efforts to deceive the Allies, among them night movements and skeleton crews who remained behind to provide screening fire from machine guns, rifles, and mortars. The deception activities proved generally successful, and Germany completed its withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line largely unmolested. In August 1918, the Allies intended to launch two offensives, one led by British Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, Commander-in-chief (C-in-C) of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), near Amiens, and the other by American General John J. Pershing, C-in-C of the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF), near Saint-Mihiel. Prior to the Battle of Amiens, Haig's subordinate, General Henry Rawlinson, commander of the British Fourth Army, employed several deceptive tactics, including periods of radio silence by units involved in the coming attack and false radio traffic from other parts of the British lines. In addition, Rawlinson delayed troop movement for as long as possible prior to the start of the attack to prevent German observers from obtaining data on his disposition of forces, and moved troops and materiel almost entirely at night. The British offensive was immediately successful because they had maintained the element of surprise. British troops and tanks advanced eight miles, captured 400 artillery pieces, and inflicted 27,000 casualties, including 12,000 prisoners. In an effort to gain an advantage near Saint-Mihiel, U.S. planners including Arthur L. Conger attempted to deceive the Germans into believing the American attack would come at Belfort, 180 miles to the south. False orders left where spies or informants could find them and staff officer reconnaissance activity created the appearance that the U.S. intended to conduct operations in and around Belfort. Pershing gained surprise at Saint-Mihiel and his offensive was successful. In 1926, Conger discovered from a former German officer that while the Belfort Ruse had not been completely successful, it had aided Pershing. Concerned that an Allied attack in the Belfort area was at least a possibility, many German units that could have reinforced German lines in the Saint-Mihiel area delayed movement from their rear area positions near Saint-Mihiel until it was too late. As a result of the success of Pershing's offensive, they did not have time to execute their withdrawal plans, and either abandoned their weapons and fled or were taken as prisoners. Eastern front: At a war council held with senior commanders and the czar in April 1916, Russian General Aleksei Brusilov presented a plan to the Stavka (the Russian high command), proposing a massive offensive by his Southwestern Front against the Austro-Hungarian forces in Galicia. Brusilov's plan aimed to take some of the pressure off French and British armies in France and the Italian Army along the Isonzo Front and if possible to knock Austria-Hungary out of the war. As the Austrian army was heavily engaged in Italy, the Russian army enjoyed a significant numerical advantage in the Galician sector. Brusilov's plan was approved, and he massed 40 infantry divisions and 15 cavalry divisions in preparation for the Brusilov Offensive. Deception efforts included false radio traffic, false orders sent by messengers who were intended to be captured, and equipment displays including dummy artillery to mislead Austria-Hungary as to the location of his units. Beginning in June 1916, Brusilov's surprise offensive caused Germany to halt its Western front attack on Verdun and transfer considerable forces to the Eastern front. It also severely reduced the fighting effectiveness of Austria-Hungary's forces, effectively depriving Germany of its most important ally. Palestine: In October 1917, Edmund Allenby, commander of Britain's Egyptian Expeditionary Force, planned to attack the Ottomans in southern Palestine. Rather than repeat previous frontal assaults at Gaza, which had been unsuccessful, he planned a flanking attack at Beersheba. As part of the larger deception effort to convince the Ottomans that Gaza was his objective, an officer under Allenby's command executed a deceptive tactic now known as the Haversack Ruse. In this effort, usually attributed to Richard Meinertzhagen, the officer intentionally dropped a knapsack which contained false plans for an attack on Gaza, which the Ottomans recovered. As a result of the Haversack Ruse and other deceptive measures, the British surprised the Ottomans and achieved victory at the 31 October 1917 Battle of Beersheba. Allenby again resorted to deception as he prepared to attack the Ottomans again at Tel Megiddo in September 1918. In preparation for the battle, British forces concealed the movement of three cavalry and several infantry divisions from the eastern end of the front line, the Jordan Valley, to the western end on the Mediterranean Sea. The single mounted division that remained in the east, reinforced with infantry, maintained the illusion that the Jordan Valley remained fully garrisoned. Deceptive measures included marching infantry into the valley during the day when they could be observed by the Ottomans, transporting them out by truck at night, then marching them back the next day. The tents of the departed units were left standing, and dummy horses, mules, and soldiers made from canvas and straw were displayed throughout the encampment. In addition, mules dragged branches up and down the valley to generate thick clouds of dust, giving the impression of more animals and men on hand than there actually were. Though the deceptions did not induce Otto Liman von Sanders, the commander of the Ottoman Army, to concentrate his forces on the eastern flank, as Allenby hoped, the Ottomans could not be certain of his intentions, so they could not mass their forces. With the Ottomans spread throughout their line, Allenby's forces had a numerical advantage at the 19 to 25 September Battle of Megiddo (1918), and attained victory over the Ottomans. At sea: Britain's Royal Navy made extensive use of Q-ships to combat German submarines. Camouflaged to look like a civilian sailing vessel or decrepit tramp steamer, the Q-ships were decoys that carried concealed heavy guns. The function of the Q-ships was to appear to be an undefended target. If successful, German submarines would be lured to the surface to sink or destroy the ship by using deck guns, enabling the submarine to conserve its limited supply of torpedoes for use against warships. If a German U-boat surfaced, the Q-ship would immediately display the Royal Navy's White Ensign flag in compliance with international law, then deploy its guns against the submarine. In 150 engagements, British Q-ships destroyed 14 U-boats and damaged 60. 27 of the 200 Q-ships the British employed were lost to German attacks. World War II: Eastern Front: Before Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, the German High Command explained away the creation of a massive force arrayed to invade the Soviet Union by informing Soviet leaders including Joseph Stalin that it was training in preparation for an invasion of the United Kingdom. The deception worked, and Stalin continued to ignore German preparations until after the invasion of the Soviet Union had actually commenced. When the Allies on the Western Front planned the Normandy invasion for June 1944, the Soviet Union simultaneously planned for a major Eastern front offensive against German forces. Called Operation Bagration, this Soviet attack was designed to catch the Germans unprepared in Belorussia, at the center of their lines. To gain and maintain the element of surprise for Bagration, the Soviets executed a successful deception effort. The overall intent was to make German commanders believe the Soviets would only defend in the center of the front (Belorussia), while launching a major offensive to the south in Ukraine and Crimea and a feint to the north in Finland. Soviet military leaders successfully masked preparations for action in Belorussia and limited German reconnaissance in the center of the front while drawing German attention to deceptive activities in the north and south. Germany was caught off-guard at the start of the Bagration offensive on 23 June, and the Soviets quickly pushed retreating German forces from the Soviet Union all the way to Poland. Western Front: Africa: From early 1941, Dudley Clarke commanded the 'A' Force, based in Cairo, Egypt, which developed much of the war's Allied deception strategy.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military deception

To gain and maintain the element of surprise for Bagration, the Soviets executed a successful deception effort. The overall intent was to make German commanders believe the Soviets would only defend in the center of the front (Belorussia), while launching a major offensive to the south in Ukraine and Crimea and a feint to the north in Finland. Soviet military leaders successfully masked preparations for action in Belorussia and limited German reconnaissance in the center of the front while drawing German attention to deceptive activities in the north and south. Germany was caught off-guard at the start of the Bagration offensive on 23 June, and the Soviets quickly pushed retreating German forces from the Soviet Union all the way to Poland. Western Front: Africa: From early 1941, Dudley Clarke commanded the 'A' Force, based in Cairo, Egypt, which developed much of the war's Allied deception strategy. In an initial deception failure from which Clarke derived an important lesson he put to use in the future, the British intended to retake British Somaliland by an advance from Sudan into Eritrea. Operation Camilla was intended to deceive the Italians occupying British Somaliland into thinking the British intended to retake British Somaliland by an amphibious assault from Aden. Instead of moving their troops to meet the potential amphibious landing, or retreating to Italian-occupied Somalia, the Italians withdrew into Eritrea. As a result, they possessed greater strength at the British objective when the genuine British attack occurred. Clarke's lesson was to focus deception not on what the enemy should think is happening but what the deception planner wants the enemy to do as a result. North Africa: Deception played an important part in the war in North Africa. In 1941, a British Army unit led by magician and illusionist Jasper Maskelyne prevented the destruction of Alexandria, Egypt by using lights to recreate the nighttime image of the city, while blacking out the actual city lights. Coupled with explosives that simulated German bombs landing on the city, Maskelyne's illusion caused German planes to release their ordnance on the empty coastal site he had prepared rather than on the city. Maskelyne was subsequently tasked with preventing the Germans from attacking the Suez Canal, a key asset in the Allied supply chain. He responded by creating a system of swirling searchlights which cast a spray of strobe light over more than 100 miles of the sky above Egypt. German pilots were unable to see the canal, and so were unable to destroy it. As part of the deception surrounding Operation Crusader during the Siege of Tobruk, camouflage artist Steven Sykes built a dummy railhead near Misheifa in Egypt. The intent, which succeeded, was to divert German aerial attacks from the real railhead and deceive the Germans into believing that the British attack would not begin until the dummy was completed. Before the Second Battle of El Alamein, camouflage unit commander Geoffrey Barkas led Operation Sentinel and Operation Bertram, which used dummy equipment and other deceptive measures to deceive German commander Erwin Rommel about Allied strength and the timing and location of the Allied attack. In Operation Sly Bob, Maskalyne's unit attempted to create a dummy submarine that would draw the attention of German reconnaissance aircraft along the German and Italian Italy-to-Tripoli supply line, enabling British ships to gain the element of surprise when attacking Axis shipping. By using old railroad sleeper cars, a wooden frame, nailed and welded beams, and metal tubing, Maskalyne's unit succeeded in creating a prototype that British ship commanders unaware of the deception plan nearly sank when they observed it near the Suez Canal. The difficulty in creating a viable dummy rendered the project impractical, and Sly Bob was abandoned before it was fully implemented. Based on the experience with Sly Bob, the British attempted to portray an aging cruiser as a battleship that would pose a threat to German shipping. When the effort proved unsuccessful because the dummy equipment and fixtures added to the cruiser were unrealistic, Maskalyne's team used the partially-dummied cruiser as "sucker bait". With sucker bait, a magician uses an audience's powers of observation against it by allowing members to falsely believe they see through a trick. By appearing to attempt to camouflage the cruiser-turned-dummy battleship, which Maskalyne christened HMS Houdin after magician Jean-Eugène Robert-Houdin, but allowing German observers to see through the camouflage, Maskalyne's team enabled the Germans to conclude on their own that the British were attempting to hide a battleship. Allowing the Germans to believe they had penetrated the camouflage and detected the battleship created in the minds of German military leadership the same risk to German shipping a real battleship would have posed. Normandy: Before the June 1944 D-Day invasion of Normandy, the Allies launched a deception codenamed Operation Bodyguard. As part of Bodyguard, the Operation Quicksilver deception portrayed First United States Army Group (FUSAG), a skeleton headquarters commanded by Omar Bradley, as an army group commanded by George Patton. In Operation Fortitude South, another component of Bodyguard, the Germans were persuaded that FUSAG would invade France at Pas-de-Calais in the fall of 1944. British and American troops used dummy equipment, false radio traffic and double agents (see Double-Cross System) to deceive German intelligence on the location and timing of the invasion. The Germans awaited the Calais landing for many weeks after the real landings in Normandy, leaving in place near Calais several divisions that could have helped delay or defeat the Normandy attack. By the time the Germans realized the Normandy landings were the actual offensive, Allied units were so well established in Normandy that they could not be dislodged. Pacific theater: Japan continued diplomatic engagement with the U.S. on several issues of concern throughout late November and into early December 1941 even though attacking ships had sailed from their base in the remote Kuril Islands. The surprise 7 December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor took place several hours before Japan presented a formal declaration of hostilities and officially broke diplomatic ties. Japan also made extensive use of decoys and other deceptive displays throughout the war, which took on increased importance as the tide of the war went against it in 1944 and 1945. Prior to the October 1944 Battle off Samar, the Japanese incorporated deception into their plan of attack by luring Admiral William Halsey Jr. into leading his powerful Third Fleet to chase a decoy fleet, a target so inviting Halsey took with him every ship he commanded. With Halsey's force out of the way, the Japanese intended to attack the Allied landings on Leyte. The U.S. responded with their few remaining forces, the three escort carrier groups of the Seventh Fleet. Escort carriers and destroyer escorts had been built to protect slow convoys from submarine attack, and were later adapted to attack ground targets, but they had few torpedoes, as they normally relied on Halsey's fleet to protect them from armored warships. These ships, organized as Task Unit 77.4.3 ("Taffy 3"), and commanded by Rear Admiral Clifton Sprague, possessed neither the firepower nor the armor to oppose the 23 ships of the Japanese force, which included Yamato's 18-inch guns, but took the initiative and attacked. In addition to ships firing on the Japanese from point-blank range, aircraft including FM-2 Wildcats, F6F Hellcats and TBM Avengers, strafed, bombed, torpedoed, rocketed, and depth-charged the Japanese force until they ran out of ammunition. They then resorted to deception, including numerous "dry runs" at the Japanese ships. Concerned that he faced a larger force than he actually did, Japanese commander Admiral Takeo Kurita decided to withdraw. During the Battle of Iwo Jima in February and March 1945, Japanese deception included dummy tanks sculpted out of the island's soft volcanic rock. At the Japanese-held airfield in Tianhe District, China, the Japanese painted on the ground the image of a B-29 Bomber that appeared to be on fire. Their intent was for the painted image to appear real to high-flying aircraft, which would lower their altitude to investigate, thus making them targets for Japanese anti-aircraft fire. In addition, the Japanese made extensive use of bamboo-framed dummy aircraft to project airpower and protect their remaining aircraft, straw dummy soldiers and wood weapons that made defensive works appear to be manned, and wood dummy tanks to make infantry soldiers appear to have more combat power than they actually possessed. The Allies planned an invasion of Japan to take place after the end of fighting in Europe. This plan, codenamed Operation Downfall, had several components, including the Operation Olympic invasion of the southern Japanese island of Kyushu. The deception created to enable Olympic to succeed, Operation Pastel, would have included false attacks against Japanese held-ports in China, as well as Japanese positions on the island of Formosa. The end of the war following the U.S. atomic bomb attacks on Japan ended the need for a ground invasion or a deception plan, so Pastel was never implemented. At sea: As a liaison to the British Navy early in the war, actor and U.S. Navy officer Douglas Fairbanks Jr. observed and participated in several raiding parties and diversions on the French coast. Upon returning to the United States, Fairbanks proposed to Ernest King, the Chief of Naval Operations the creation of a unit that would plan and execute diversionary and deception missions.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military deception

This plan, codenamed Operation Downfall, had several components, including the Operation Olympic invasion of the southern Japanese island of Kyushu. The deception created to enable Olympic to succeed, Operation Pastel, would have included false attacks against Japanese held-ports in China, as well as Japanese positions on the island of Formosa. The end of the war following the U.S. atomic bomb attacks on Japan ended the need for a ground invasion or a deception plan, so Pastel was never implemented. At sea: As a liaison to the British Navy early in the war, actor and U.S. Navy officer Douglas Fairbanks Jr. observed and participated in several raiding parties and diversions on the French coast. Upon returning to the United States, Fairbanks proposed to Ernest King, the Chief of Naval Operations the creation of a unit that would plan and execute diversionary and deception missions. King authorized Fairbanks to recruit 180 officers and 300 enlisted men for the program, which was named Beach Jumpers. There are several stories about how the unit was named; during an interview late in life, Fairbanks said British admiral Louis Mountbatten coined it with the intention of creating a designation that provided cover for the unit's activities by being partly descriptive and partly in code. On 16 March 1943 Beach Jumper Unit ONE (BJU-1) was commissioned with the mission "To assist and support the operating forces in the conduct of Tactical Cover and Deception in Naval Warfare." Eleven BJUs deployed during the war, and were used in all theaters. The Beach Jumpers raided false landing zones and shore defenses during amphibious attacks, sowing confusion with the enemy about actual landing sites and causing the enemy to defend in the wrong place. To carry out these deceptions, their boats were equipped with two .50 caliber machine guns, 10 window (chaff) rockets, smoke generators, and floating time-delay explosive packs. They were also outfitted with naval balloons and communications and psychological operations equipment, including recorders, speakers, generators, and radio jammers. The balloons included radar reflective strips that when towed would cause Beach Jumper units to appear to enemy radar operators as a larger force than they actually were. Beach Jumper units created diversionary landings during several battles, including Operation Husky and Operation Dragoon. The Beach Jumpers were inactivated after World War II, but were reconstituted for service during the Korean War and Vietnam War. With the U.S. military creating and fielding an Information Operations capability beginning in the early 1990s, the modern Beach Jumpers exist as part of U.S. Naval Information Forces. Korean War: In the summer of 1950, the Korean People's Army (KPA) of North Korea attacked South Korea. 140,000 South Korean and allied soldiers were nearly defeated. In August and September 1950, South Korea and its allies waged the Battle of Pusan Perimeter against the KPA and succeeded in establishing a defensive line that prevented the KPA from destroying them. To enable the counterattack that started with an amphibious landing at Inchon (codenamed Operation Chromite), United Nations (U.N.) forces staged an elaborate deception that made it appear the landing would take place at Gunsan, 105 miles away from the actual landing site at Inchon and closer to the Pusan Perimeter. On 5 September, the U.S. Air Force began attacks on roads and bridges to isolate Gunsan. This was followed by a naval bombardment, which was followed by heavy bombing of military installations in and near the town. These tactics were typical pre-invasion steps, and were intended to cause North Korea to believe Gunsan was the planned U.N. invasion site. In addition to the aerial and naval bombardment, United States Marine Corps officers briefed their units on the supposed Gunsan landing within earshot of many Koreans, assuming that the information would make its way to KPA leaders through rumors or spies. On the night of 12–13 September, the British Royal Navy landed U.S. Army special operations troops and Royal Marines commandos at Gunsan, making sure that enemy forces noticed their supposed reconnaissance of the area. U.N. forces also conducted rehearsals on the coast of South Korea at several sites with conditions were similar to Inchon. These drills enabled U.N. forces to perfect the timing and actions of the planned Inchon landing while simultaneously confusing the North Koreans as to the actual landing site. On 15 September, United Nations forces under Douglas MacArthur surprised the KPA with the Inchon landing. In the ensuing Battle of Inchon, the U.N. ended a string of victories by North Korea. The KPA collapsed within a month, and 135,000 KPA troops were taken prisoner. Cuban Missile Crisis: During the period leading up to the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962, Cuba and the Soviet Union employed several deceptive measures to hide their activities. These included the codename for the plan to deploy missiles in Cuba; Anadyr, a Russian town, is associated with the sparsely-populated and inaccessible area of Northeastern Russia and did not suggest an operation in the Caribbean. Soviet soldiers constructed false superstructures to hide the defenses of the ships transporting missiles and launching equipment to Cuba, and placed agricultural equipment and other non-military machinery on deck where it could be seen. Upon arrival, the ships unloaded at eleven different Cuban ports to deceive American surveillance efforts. At the same time, Soviet and Cuban news media reported on the supposedly massive agricultural assistance the Soviets were providing Cuba, which provided a plausible explanation for the activity and equipment that could be observed. The Soviet deception proved highly effective and the missiles were discovered only after they were already operational. Vietnam War: Both North Vietnam and the forces of South Vietnam and the United States made use of deception during the Vietnam War. Operation El Paso: As part of Operation El Paso, which took place from May to July 1966, the U.S. 1st Infantry Division deliberately exposed information about a planned resupply and engineer equipment convoy from Minh Than north to An Lộc. Division planners anticipated the enemy response would be an ambush at one of a number of possible locations. As a result, the supposedly lightly armed convoy actually consisted of armored cavalry and infantry. Additionally, 1st ID planners prepared for air assault operations at the most likely ambush sites. Events unfolded as the planners had foreseen, and the Viet Cong ambushed the convoy. The ambush sprang the 1st Infantry Division's trap, and the subsequent Battle of Minh Thanh Road resulted in 50 percent of the Viet Cong regiment becoming casualties. Operation Bolo: In 1967's Operation Bolo, a United States Air Force unit led by Robin Olds successfully countered the threat posed by Soviet MiG-21 fighter planes operating in North Vietnam. During bombing missions, unescorted U.S. Republic F-105 Thunderchief fighter-bombers would often be attacked by MiG-21s. Heavily laden with ordnance, the F-105s were no match for the faster MiGs. On occasions when the F-105s were escorted by F-4 Phantom II fighter planes, the MiGs would refuse to engage. In addition, the rules of engagement on the U.S. side prevented attacking the MiGs when they were on the ground. This measure was intended to keep the Soviet Union from becoming further engaged in the conflict by preventing casualties to the Soviet mechanics and technical advisors who were assisting North Vietnam. To counter the MiG threat, Olds' 8th Fighter Wing prepared its F-4s to display the electronic and radar signatures of F-105s. To create this effect, the 8th Fighter Wing outfitted F-4s with QRC-160 jamming pods, a device used only by F-105s. When they flew the mission, Olds and his fellow pilots assumed the route, elevation, speed, and formation of an F-105 flight. They also staggered the takeoff and arrival times of the F-4s, enabling later-arriving F-4s to prevent the MiGs from landing. The Bolo deception was executed successfully. The North Vietnamese believed they faced an F-105 flight and dispatched their MiGs. The later-arriving F4s prevented the MiGs from returning to their base. The 8th Fighter Wing destroyed seven MiGs in a matter of minutes, while Olds' fighters sustained no losses. The destruction of half their MiGs and uncertainty about whether future flights observed on radar and electronic sensors were unescorted F-105s or F-4s pretending to be F-105s caused North Vietnam to ground its MiGs. The MiGs failed in their mission of preventing U.S. Operation Rolling Thunder bombing runs over North Vietnam. Tet Offensive: In 1967, the government and military of North Vietnam began planning for an offensive that would begin in early 1968. The intent within the war's area of operations was to spark an uprising by the Viet Cong and others in South Vietnam who were sympathetic to the government in the north. In a wider sense, North Vietnam hoped the offensive would cause a withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Vietnam by undermining U.S. public confidence in the war. North Vietnam implemented several deceptive measures to mask preparations for the offensive.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military deception

The destruction of half their MiGs and uncertainty about whether future flights observed on radar and electronic sensors were unescorted F-105s or F-4s pretending to be F-105s caused North Vietnam to ground its MiGs. The MiGs failed in their mission of preventing U.S. Operation Rolling Thunder bombing runs over North Vietnam. Tet Offensive: In 1967, the government and military of North Vietnam began planning for an offensive that would begin in early 1968. The intent within the war's area of operations was to spark an uprising by the Viet Cong and others in South Vietnam who were sympathetic to the government in the north. In a wider sense, North Vietnam hoped the offensive would cause a withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Vietnam by undermining U.S. public confidence in the war. North Vietnam implemented several deceptive measures to mask preparations for the offensive. In October, the North Vietnamese government announced that it would observe a seven-day holiday truce from 27 January to 3 February 1968, several days longer than previous Tet truces had lasted. The U.S. and South Vietnam presumed that the coming offensive, of which they had received some intelligence, would take place before or after the truce. When the attacks had not commenced before the holiday, South Vietnamese and U.S. leaders assumed it would come after the holiday. As a result, they allowed many soldiers to take holiday leave and relaxed the usual security measures. As an additional deceptive measure, while intending to attack South Vietnam's major cities and military installations, the North Vietnamese continued attacks along the border between the two countries during late 1967. These diversionary assaults served to draw U.S. attention to the border and U.S. forces away from the actual objectives—the heavily populated South Vietnamese coastal lowlands and cities. When the offensive commenced, South Vietnam and the U.S. were surprised by the coordinated attacks. However, the U.S. and South Vietnam regrouped and over several days repulsed the North Vietnamese assaults. North Vietnam failed to attain the immediate objective of creating an uprising in South Vietnam. In the longer term, the offensive aided in swaying U.S. public opinion against the war, which led to a decreased U.S. presence in Vietnam and eventual withdrawal. Cherbourg Project: In 1969, France abruptly declared an arms embargo against countries in the Middle East, chiefly aimed at Israel, and cancelled a contract to build patrol boats for Israel's navy. France also refused to release the last five boats built under the contract even though Israel had already paid for them. In response, the Israel Defense Forces mounted an elaborate scheme involving the purchase of the boats by a civilian company for non-military purposes. When they became concerned that the dummy transaction would be exposed, Israel decided to secretly take possession of the boats. The Israeli navy dispatched crews disguised as civilians, who gradually arrived at the French Atlantic seaport of Cherbourg. Once the crews assembled, they secretly sailed the five boats out of the harbor on the night of Christmas Eve 1969. Though they encountered a winter storm, the boats reached the Mediterranean Sea and safely completed the voyage to Israel. The plan to take possession of the boats, which the Israelis called "Operation Noa" but came to be known as the Cherbourg Project, was assisted by sympathetic Cherbourg shipyard and boat building company employees, but the French government was kept totally unaware until the boats had left port. Yom Kippur War: In the period before the 1973 Yom Kippur War between Israel and the joint forces of Egypt and Syria, Egypt executed annual maneuvers near the Sinai Peninsula, Tahrir 41, which conditioned Israel to Egyptian troop activity in the area. In addition, several months before the start of the war, Egypt created the false impression of an imminent attack, which caused Israel to announce an emergency military reserve call up. When the war started, Israel believed the initial Egyptian troop movements were another iteration of the exercises the Egyptians had previously undertaken. In addition, because an emergency call up was costly and disruptive, the Israeli government was reluctant to conduct another one until it was sure an attack was underway. As a result of the deception, Egypt had surprise on its side when it attacked. Operation Entebbe Rescue Mission: After the hijacking of an Air France plane in late June 1976, the perpetrators had the aircraft diverted to Entebbe Airport in Uganda, where they threatened to kill all the Jewish and Israeli passengers if their demands were not met. The Israeli government pursued diplomatic efforts to free the hostages while the Israeli Defense Forces planned a rescue mission in secrecy. When the raid was launched, IDF commandos secretly landed at an old unused area of the airport, where they offloaded decoy vehicles resembling Ugandan president Idi Amin's motorcade. By making themselves appear to be Amin and his security detail, the Israelis intended to gain the element of surprise on Ugandan guards at the terminal where the hostages were held. The ruse was only partly successful because Amin had recently changed limousines, and his new one was white, while the one the Israelis were using was black. The Ugandan guards realized the trick, which led to a gunfight that cost the Israeli commandos the element of surprise, but the raid ended with the successful rescue of the hostages. Falklands War: The Falklands War took place between April and June 1982. During the period prior to the war, Argentina's military leaders, who were subordinate to general and president Leopoldo Galtieri, used the December 1981 change of command ceremony for Argentina's new chief of naval operations as cover to begin secretly planning for an invasion of the Falkland Islands. In April 1982, the forces of Argentina carried out the Invasion of South Georgia, an island possession of the United Kingdom. In mid-March, Argentina had used deception to successfully position an advance guard on South Georgia. An Argentinian company received a contract to dismantle a British whaling station for scrap. When the contractor's ship arrived, it contained members of an Argentinian Navy special forces unit who were disguised as scientists. When the British prepared to conduct a Falklands landing in response to Argentina's invasion, Argentina anticipated an assault at Port Stanley, the capital and site of the largest airport on the islands. The British gained the element of surprise by launching a feint at Stanley while conducting their main assault at San Carlos, on the opposite side of East Falkland. The British then marched overland to Port Stanley, where they launched a land-based attack on the Argentine defenses surrounding the city. The Argentinians were caught off-guard and were soon compelled to surrender. Operation Just Cause: When the leader of Panama, Manuel Noriega realized he was being surveilled by the U.S. military prior to the United States invasion of Panama in December 1989, Noriega resorted to several deceptive measures to mask his movements and locations. These included look-alike doubles, decoy vehicles and aircraft, false convoys, frequent changes of clothes, recordings of his voice played at locations where he was not present, and frequent changes of his actual location. On the U.S. side, deception included troop movements in and around U.S. bases in Panama made to look like routine training missions, a logistics buildup disguised as routine activity, and large-scale exercises in the United States that desensitized Panamanian leaders as to U.S. capabilities and intent. While Noriega and his subordinates knew the United States had the capacity to act, they were misled by their perceptions of U.S. activity and misreading of U.S. intent into believing that the U.S. would not attack. As a result, when the attack occurred, the U.S. had the element of surprise, which helped it gain a quick victory. Operation Desert Storm: During the period prior to the 1990–1991 Gulf War, Iraqi president Saddam Hussein positioned 100,000 troops near Iraq's border with Kuwait. To mask his true intention of invading Kuwait, during the summer of 1990, Saddam told ambassadors to Iraq, the leaders of other countries, and members of the international news media that his troops were on a training mission or were near the border merely as a tactic to extract concessions from Kuwait during diplomatic negotiations. On 2 August, Iraq's invasion commenced; the small Kuwaiti military was quickly overwhelmed, and Iraq occupied Kuwait. After invading Kuwait, the creation of an anti-Iraq coalition and its movement of troops and materiel into Saudi Arabia caused Saddam to anticipate a Coalition ground assault from Saudi Arabia north into Kuwait and an amphibious landing on Kuwait's Persian Gulf coast. Prior to the start of the Coalition offensive in February 1991, its ground forces successfully moved multiple divisions west to the largely undefended border between Saudi Arabia and Iraq. When the attack commenced, the Coalition conducted a feint directly into Kuwait while the main effort—the "Left Hook" enabled by concealing the move of units to the west—attacked into Iraq and cut off Iraqi forces in Kuwait. After advancing into Iraq, Coalition forces turned right and attacked Iraqi forces in Kuwait from the rear. Facing overwhelming Coalition combat power in Kuwait and unable to retreat to Iraq, the Iraqi military in Kuwait quickly surrendered. Kosovo War: During the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia as part of the 1998–1999 Kosovo War, the Serbian Army made extensive use of deception, which caused NATO forces to expend time, effort, and resources attacking false targets.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military deception

Prior to the start of the Coalition offensive in February 1991, its ground forces successfully moved multiple divisions west to the largely undefended border between Saudi Arabia and Iraq. When the attack commenced, the Coalition conducted a feint directly into Kuwait while the main effort—the "Left Hook" enabled by concealing the move of units to the west—attacked into Iraq and cut off Iraqi forces in Kuwait. After advancing into Iraq, Coalition forces turned right and attacked Iraqi forces in Kuwait from the rear. Facing overwhelming Coalition combat power in Kuwait and unable to retreat to Iraq, the Iraqi military in Kuwait quickly surrendered. Kosovo War: During the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia as part of the 1998–1999 Kosovo War, the Serbian Army made extensive use of deception, which caused NATO forces to expend time, effort, and resources attacking false targets. According to post-war assessments, NATO often attacked crude decoy tanks, artillery, and wheeled vehicles made of easy to obtain material including sticks and plastic. Many of these decoys included easily produced heat sources, such as burning cans of oil, which deceived the thermal imaging systems of NATO aircraft. As a result, NATO believed it inflicted far more damage on the Serbian Army than it actually had, and Serbia gained a propaganda victory by showing how easily NATO had been deceived. 2006 Lebanon War: Prior to the 2006 Lebanon War, the Hezbollah terrorist group employed deceptive measures intended to degrade Israel's military reputation both internationally and within Israel. Deceptive measures included the construction of false bunkers and command posts which Hezbollah allowed Israel to observe while the work was in progress, while simultaneously concealing the construction of actual facilities. When Israel attacked Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in July, the dummy sites were destroyed while the actual ones were left intact. Russo-Ukrainian War: In 2014, Russia and Ukraine went to war after Russia contested control of Ukraine's Crimea and Donbas. Russia employed disinformation and denial to facilitate its military activities, in addition to engaging in several deceptive activities. As an example, in August, Russian television news carried stories about a Russian truck convoy transporting water and baby food to Crimea. The international news media reported heavily on this convoy, presuming it was carrying Russian military supplies or materiel, and that they would be able to prove Russia was lying about the cargo. While attention was focused on this diversion, Russia's military was moving soldiers, combat equipment, and vehicles into Donbas. Sino-Indian border dispute: During the 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes, China employed military deception to gain an advantage. Intending to increase its troop presence in disputed areas of Ladakh, China's military conducted training maneuvers near the areas that were the source of tension with India. This activity conditioned India to the presence of Chinese troops in the vicinity. In addition, China began construction of a nearby airbase. In early May, China began marching troops into several of the contested locations. In mid-to-late May, the Chinese military diverted trucks from the airbase construction project and used them to rapidly transport soldiers into portions of the disputed territory. The rapid troop movements came without warning and took India by surprise. As a result, China gained numerical superiority in several of Ladakh's contested areas. 2023 Israel–Hamas war: During the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, Hamas employed deception to gain the element of surprise when it attacked Israel. These deceptive measures included a sustained effort to convince Israeli leadership that Hamas was focused on economic improvement in Gaza, not armed conflict. Hamas also trained and rehearsed its attacks in plain sight, allowing the Israelis to assume that these activities were merely posturing on the part of Hamas fighters. In addition, Hamas ramped down conflict in the Gaza strip while increasing tensions in the West Bank; Israel moved forces from one location to the other, giving Hamas a more favorable force ratio in Gaza. Additional deceptive activities included acquiring and pre-positioning non-military vehicles intended for military use, including bulldozers, paragliders, motorcycles, and small boats. When the attack commenced, Hamas had the advantage of catching Israel off guard, which enabled Hamas's initial success. In fiction: Fictional examples of military deception include the 1966 Star Trek episode "The Corbomite Maneuver". When Enterprise is held by the tractor beam of an alien ship, its commander announces his intention to destroy Enterprise. Captain James T. Kirk informs the alien commander, Balok, that Enterprise is on a peaceful mission. Balok does not accept Kirk's explanation, so Kirk responds with a deceptive bluff, claiming Enterprise is outfitted with a secret doomsday device made of "Corbomite". Destruction of Enterprise will trigger the Corbomite device, resulting in destruction of the alien ship. Balok uses a smaller ship to tow Enterprise to a remote area where it can be safely destroyed. Enterprise breaks free from the smaller ship's tractor beam, but damages the smaller ship in the process. Kirk then leads a boarding party to assist the aliens. Kirk's party meets Balok, who is alone and says he was testing Enterprise to discern whether Kirk's claims of peaceful intentions were true. Satisfied by their willingness to render aid to a perceived enemy, Balok expresses a desire to learn more about humans and their culture. A scene from the 2000 film The Patriot depicts Patriot militia leader Benjamin Martin employing deceptive decoys when negotiating for the release of several members of his command who have been taken prisoner. Martin offers to exchange eighteen British officers, whom he claims are held on a hillside near the British headquarters. The British commander, General Cornwallis views the hill with a spyglass, observes figures in British uniforms who appear to be prisoners, and agrees to the exchange. After Martin and his men leave, the officer dispatched by Cornwallis to recover the British prisoners discovers they are scarecrows in captured British uniforms. In the 2003 film Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, Captain Jack Aubrey of HMS Surprise is pursued by the French privateer Acheron. When Acheron appears likely to catch Surprise, Aubrey orders construction of a raft with sails, which contains lanterns arranged in the same pattern as those visible on the stern of Surprise. After night falls, a member of Aubrey's crew lights the raft's lanterns while another crewman douses the lanterns on Surprise. After recovering the crewman from the raft, Aubrey has it cut loose. The darkened Surprise then escapes on a new course while Acheron pursues the decoy. In the 2018 video game We Happy Few, "Arthur's Story" depicts an alternate version of World War II that includes the German military threatening the village of Wellington Wells with dummy tanks made of papier-mâché. The populace does not resist because it believes the threat is real. Opinions: Opinions vary among military strategists and authors as to the value of military deception. For example, the two books on warfare usually considered the most famous classics, Sun Tzu's The Art of War and Clausewitz's On War have diametrically opposed views. Sun Tzu emphasizes military deception and considers it the key to victory. Clausewitz argues that the fog of war prevents a commander from having a clear understanding of the operating environment, so creating some sort of false appearance, particularly on a large scale, is unlikely to be meaningful. Because of the cost and effort, Clausewitz argues that from a cost-benefit analysis, a large deception is an acceptable part of a course of action only under special circumstances. See also: Notes: References: Bibliography: External links: Media related to Military deception at Wikimedia Commons Sworn to Secrecy: Secrets of War; Season 1, Episode 9, Tools of Deception. New York: History Channel. 1998. Archived from the original on 21 December 2021. Retrieved 29 May 2021 – via YouTube. Sworn to Secrecy: Secrets of War; Season 4, Episode 2, Battlefield Deceptions. New York: History Channel. 2001. Archived from the original on 21 December 2021. Retrieved 29 May 2021 – via YouTube.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military district

Algeria: Algeria is divided into six numbered military regions, each with headquarters located in a principal city or town (see People's National Army (Algeria)#Military regions). This system of territorial organization, adopted shortly after independence, grew out of the wartime wilaya structure and the postwar necessity of subduing antigovernment insurgencies that were based in the various regions. Regional commanders control and administer bases, logistics, and housing, as well as conscript training. Commanders of army divisions and brigades, air force installations, and naval forces report directly to the Ministry of National Defence and service chiefs of staff on operational matters. Previously Algeria had formed France's tenth military region. Military region commanders in 2003 included Brahim Fodel Chérif (1st Military Region), Kamel Abderrahmane (2nd Military Region, Abcène Tafer (3rd Military Region), Abdelmadjid Sahed (4th Military Region, Chérif Abderrazak (5th Military Region) and Ali Benali (6th Military Region). China: Republic of China: There were 76 northern military districts or military regions (軍區), or war areas, which were the largest formations of the National Revolutionary Army, under the Military Affairs Commission, chaired by Chiang Kai-shek during the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II. During the Second Sino-Japanese War the National Revolutionary Army eventually organized itself into twelve Military Regions. People's Republic of China: The military regions (originally eleven, then seven) of the People's Liberation Army were divided into military districts (usually contiguous with provinces) and military sub-districts, under the command of the Central Military Commission. In February 2016, the 7 military regions were changed to 5 theater commands: Eastern Theater Command Southern Theater Command Western Theater Command Northern Theater Command Central Theater Command France: Third Republic: Under the Third Republic, a military region comprised several departments which supported an army corps. For many years up to 21 military regions were active. On 24 July 1873, the French Parliament passed a law which created 18 military regions in metropolitan France. A 19th Army Corps was created in Algeria in September 1873 (see Région militaire). In 1905, the strength of the Troupes coloniales stationed in the 19 military districts of metropolitan France was reported at 2,123 officers and 26,581 other ranks. In 1946, following the Second World War ten military regions were created or recreated, in accordance with a decree of 18 February 1946. They included the 1st (Paris); 2e (Lille); 3e (Rennes); 4e (Bordeaux); 5e (Toulouse); 6e (Metz); 7e (Dijon); 8th (Lyon); the 9th (Marseille), and the 10th in Algeria. The 10th Military Region (France) supervised French Algeria during the Algerian War. Fifth Republic: With the evolution of administrative organization, France was divided into regional administrative districts (circa 1963) (administrative region dependent of a prefect of the region). The military organisation then combined the administrative organization and in each CAR corresponded a territorial military division (TMD). On the defence side, these military divisions have been grouped into military regions. Their number varied depending on the period. The current number is six. The Défense opérationnelle du territoire supervised reserve and home defence activities from 1959 to the 1970s. However, by the 1980s the number had been reduced to six: the 1st Military Region (France) with its headquarters in Paris, the 2nd Military Region (France) at Lille, the 3rd Military Region (France) at Rennes, the 4th Military Region (France) at Bordeaux, the 5th at Lyons and 6th at Metz. Each supervised up to five division militaire territoriale – military administrative sub-divisions, in 1984 sometimes supervising up to three reserve regiments each. In the twenty-first century, under the latest thorough reform of the French security and defence sector, there are seven Zone de défense et de sécurité each with a territorial ground army region: Paris (or Île-de-France, HQ in Paris), Nord (HQ in Lille), Ouest (HQ in Rennes), Sud-Ouest (HQ in Bordeaux), Sud (HQ in Marseille), Sud-Est (HQ in Lyon), Est (HQ in Strasbourg). Germany: German Reich: Before and during World War II, Germany used the system of military districts (German: Wehrkreis) to relieve field commanders of as much administrative work as possible and to provide a regular flow of trained recruits and supplies to the Field Army. The method they adopted was to separate the Field Army (Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres) from the Home Command (Heimatkriegsgebiet) and to entrust the responsibilities of training, conscription, supply and equipment to that command. The Commander of the Infantry Corps with the identical number also commanded the Wehrkreis in peacetime, but command of the Wehrkreis passed to his second-in command at the outbreak of war. In peacetime, the Wehrkreis was the home to the Infantry Corps of the same number and all subordinate units of that Corps. Federal Republic of Germany: Until 2013 the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) had four military districts – Wehrbereichskommando (WBK) as part of the Streitkräftebasis or Joint Service Support Command. Each WBK controlled several Landeskommandos (State Commands) due to the federal structure of Germany who have taken over functions carried out by the Verteidigungsbezirkskommandos (VBKs) or Military Region Commands (Defence District Commands) as. These command authorities are in charge of all military facilities. Now the Landeskommmandos are led by the National Territorial Command called Kommando Territoriale Aufgaben der Bundeswehr (KdoTerrAufgBw). Indonesia: The Indonesian Army operates with military districts, known as Komando Daerah Militer (Military Region Command) abbreviated Kodam. It was created by General Soedirman as a system initially called "Wehrkreise", adapted from the German system during World War II. The system was later ratified in "Surat Perintah Siasat No.1" (No.1 Strategy Command Letter), signed in November 1948. The Military regional commands function as a means of circle of defense, or regional defense, to defend the designated islands/provinces under Indonesian territory. Each Kodam is commanded by a Major General and has full authority to commence operations with the force under his jurisdiction. The commander (known as Panglima Kodam abbreviated Pangdam) reports to the Chief of Army Staff (KSAD) and is responsible for territorial defence during times of war and development and supervision during times of peace. He is also responsible for ensuring security and protection for VVIP visiting his territory, e.g Presidential visits, etc. Kazakhstan: A Regional Command (Kazakh: Аймақтық қолбасшылық, Aımaqtyq qolbasshylyq; Russian: Региональная команда, Regional'naya komanda) in Kazakhstan operates in a similar fashion to Russian military districts. The Kazakh Ground Forces are divided into four regional commands: Regional Command "Astana" headquartered in Astana Regional Command "East" headquartered in Semey Regional Command "West" headquartered in Atyrau Regional Command "South" headquartered in Taraz Poland: Initially, right after the First World War, Poland had five military districts (1918–1921): Kraków Military District (Krakowski Okręg Wojskowy), HQ in Kraków Łódź Military District (Łódzki Okręg Wojskowy), HQ in Łódź Lublin Military District (Lubelski Okręg Wojskowy), HQ in Lublin. Poznań Military District (Poznański Okręg Wojskowy), HQ in Poznań Warsaw Military District (Warszawski Okręg Wojskowy), HQ in Warszawa. In 1921, due to reorganization, the military districts were replaced with Dowództwo Okręgu Korpusu (DOK – Corps District Command). In the Second Polish Republic there were ten DOKs: I – Warszawa II – Lublin III – Grodno IV – Łódź V – Kraków VI – Lwów VII – Poznań VIII – Toruń IX – Brześć nad Bugiem X – Przemyśl Each DOK consisted of four large units (three infantry divisions and one cavalry brigade). For district arrangements after World War II see Polish Land Forces. The Kraków Military District disbanded in 1953. From 1999 Poland has been divided into two military districts, the Pomeranian Military District and the Silesian Military District, both were disbanded by the end of 2011.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military district

In 1921, due to reorganization, the military districts were replaced with Dowództwo Okręgu Korpusu (DOK – Corps District Command). In the Second Polish Republic there were ten DOKs: I – Warszawa II – Lublin III – Grodno IV – Łódź V – Kraków VI – Lwów VII – Poznań VIII – Toruń IX – Brześć nad Bugiem X – Przemyśl Each DOK consisted of four large units (three infantry divisions and one cavalry brigade). For district arrangements after World War II see Polish Land Forces. The Kraków Military District disbanded in 1953. From 1999 Poland has been divided into two military districts, the Pomeranian Military District and the Silesian Military District, both were disbanded by the end of 2011. Russia: Russian Empire: The Russian Empire's military district (Russian: вое́нный о́круг, voyenny okrug) was a territorial association of military units, formations, military schools, and various local military establishments. This territorial division type was utilized in Imperial Russia, USSR and is currently in use in Russian Federation. Such territorial division provided convenient management of army units, their training and other activities regarding the country's readiness to defend itself. Soviet Union: In the USSR, the military districts continued to perform the same role they had done in the Russian Empire, with first six military districts (Yaroslavsky, Moskovsky, Orlovsky, Belomorsky, Uralsky, and Privolzhsky) were formed on 31 March 1918 during the Russian Civil War. This increased to 17 military districts of the USSR at the beginning of July 1940 shortly before the USSR was invaded by Germany and entered the Second World War, and were used to create combat Fronts after commencement of the German invasion of the USSR. During the war the districts were further divided into geographic regions for logistic reasons, these being: North and North Western districts West and Central USSR districts South and South Western districts Siberian and Central Asian districts Far Eastern districts After the war, the number was increased to 33 to aid in demobilisation of forces, but by October 1946, they had been reduced to 21. By the end of the 1980s, immediately before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there were sixteen military districts, within three to five main strategic Theatre groupings. Russian Federation: Military districts (Russian: вое́нный о́круг, voyenny okrug) in the Russian Federation operates under the command of the district headquarters, headed by the district commander, and is subordinated to the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. (Previously under Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces General Nikolai Kormiltsev, the military districts reported to the General Staff via the Russian Ground Forces staff.) It is a territorial association of military units, formations, military schools, and various local military establishments. This territorial division type was historically adopted, originally by Imperial Russia, to provide a more efficient management of army units, their training and other operations activities related to combat readiness. From 1992 to 2010, the Armed Forces maintained a diminishing number of former Soviet Armed Forces districts – Leningrad Military District, Moscow Military District, Volga-Urals Military District, North Caucasus Military District, Siberian Military District, Far East Military District. In 2009–2010, these districts were reorganised into 4 Military Districts comprising regional Joint Strategic Commands. In 2014 Northern Fleet was reorganized into separate Joint Strategic Command. Leningrad Military District with headquarters in Saint Petersburg Southern Military District with headquarters in Rostov-on-Don Central Military District with headquarters in Ekaterinburg Eastern Military District with headquarters in Khabarovsk Moscow Military District with headquarters in Moscow Sweden: The military district (Swedish: Militärområde, usually abbreviated to Milo) was an administrative division of the Swedish Armed Forces, and was a higher regional level subdivision. The commander of a military district, the Militärområdesbefälhavare (also militärbefälhavare), commanded the Swedish Army divisions stationed in the region, the regional naval command, the regional air defence sector as well as the lower regional level subdivision defence districts that made up the military district. The commander answered directly to the Supreme Commander. The military districts in the modern form were created in 1966, and each district was named according to the geographical area they covered. Several changes were made, such as creating or merging districts, until all military districts were disbanded in 2000. After the Defence Act of 2000 the military districts were replaced by new military districts (Swedish: Militärdistrikt, usually abbreviated to MD). The new military districts corresponded geographically to the former military districts, however, they did not have the same territorial and operational tasks. In 2005, the military districts were replaced to some extent by four Security and Cooperation Sections (Swedish: Säkerhets- och samverkanssektioner). United Kingdom: British Army regional districts have evolved slowly over the previous 150 years or so. For many years there were regional commands in the UK, including Aldershot Command (from 1880), Eastern Command, Northern Command, Scottish Command, Southern Command and Western Command (from 1905). By 1985 these were superseded by districts, and until the spring of 1991 there were nine of them. Antony Beevor wrote in his revised edition of Inside the British Army in 1991 that '..the first of the minor districts to be amalgamated were North West District, Western District, and Wales, to form a new Western District.' HQ Northern Ireland remained separate and reported to Headquarters United Kingdom Land Forces only on non-operational matters. From 1995, UK commands and later districts were replaced by regenerative divisions. 2nd Division, 4th Division, 5th Division and London District acted as regional commands within the UK reporting to Commander Regional Forces. Scotland District was absorbed by 2nd Division in 2000. The divisions were responsible for training subordinate formations and units under their command for operations in the UK, such as Military Aid to the Civil Community, as well as training units for overseas deployments. 2nd, 4th and 5th Divisions were replaced by Support Command on 1 November 2011. United States: The military department was a military and administrative command of the US Army. Present day US military organization is structured around Unified Combatant Commands, which encompass different geographical areas and responsibilities. United States Africa Command United States Central Command United States European Command United States Indo-Pacific Command United States Northern Command United States Southern Command Uzbekistan: Military districts (Uzbek: Harbiy okruglar) of the Armed Forces of Uzbekistan are under the jurisdiction of the defense ministry of the republic. In May 2001, the Tashkent Garrison was transformed into the Tashkent Military District. The following are a list of military districts in Uzbekistan: Northwest Military District (HQ Nukus) Southwest Special Military District (HQ Qarshi) Central Military District (HQ Dzhizak) Eastern Military District (HQ Ferghana) Tashkent Military District (HQ Tashkent) The replenishment of the ranks of divisions and units in wartime is done by order of the commanders of military districts. Vietnam: Vietnam People's Army has 8 Military Regions: Hanoi Capital Command: It is directly under the Ministry of Defense of Vietnam; tasked to organize, build, manage and command armed forces defending the capital. The headquarters is in Hanoi. 1st Military Region: It is directly under the Ministry of Defense of Vietnam; tasked to protect against foreign invaders; and to organize, build, manage and command forces in northeastern Vietnam. The headquarters is in Thai Nguyen. 2nd Military Region: It is directly under the Ministry of Defense of Vietnam; tasked to organize, build, manage and command armed forces defending northwestern Vietnam. The headquarters is in Viet Tri. 3rd Military Region: It is directly under the Ministry of Defense of Vietnam; tasked to organize, build, manage and command armed forces defending the Red River Delta area. The headquarters is in Hai Phong. 4th Military Region: It is directly under the Ministry of Defense of Vietnam; tasked to organize, build, manage and command armed forces defending north central Vietnam. The headquarters is in Vinh. 5th Military Region: It is directly under the Ministry of Defense of Vietnam; tasked to organize, build, manage and command armed forces defending south central Vietnam, including the western highlands and south central coastal provinces. The headquarters is in Da Nang. 7th Military Region: It is directly under the Ministry of Defense of Vietnam; tasked to organize, build, manage and command armed forces defending southeastern Vietnam. The headquarters is in Ho Chi Minh City. 9th Military Region: It is directly under the Ministry of Defense of Vietnam; tasked to organize, build, manage and command armed forces defending the Mekong Delta. The headquarters is in Cần Thơ The Army of the Republic of Vietnam originally had four corps, for example I Corps (South Vietnam). Later they were redesignated Military Regions 1–4. See also: Unified Combatant Command United States historical military districts Fortified district References: Beevor, Antony (1991).

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military district

The headquarters is in Da Nang. 7th Military Region: It is directly under the Ministry of Defense of Vietnam; tasked to organize, build, manage and command armed forces defending southeastern Vietnam. The headquarters is in Ho Chi Minh City. 9th Military Region: It is directly under the Ministry of Defense of Vietnam; tasked to organize, build, manage and command armed forces defending the Mekong Delta. The headquarters is in Cần Thơ The Army of the Republic of Vietnam originally had four corps, for example I Corps (South Vietnam). Later they were redesignated Military Regions 1–4. See also: Unified Combatant Command United States historical military districts Fortified district References: Beevor, Antony (1991). Inside the British Army. Reading: Corgi Books. ISBN 0552138185. Feskov, V.I.; K.A. Kalashnikov; V.I. Golikov (2004). The Soviet Army in the Years of the 'Cold War' (1945–1991). Tomsk: Tomsk University Press. ISBN 5-7511-1819-7. Isby, David C.; Kamps, Charles T. (1985). Armies of NATO's Central Front. London: Jane's Information Group. ISBN 0-7106-0341-X. Werenfels, Isabelle. Managing Instability in Algeria: Elites and Political Change since 1995.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military doctrine

Defining doctrine: NATO's definition of doctrine, used unaltered by many member nations, is: Fundamental principles by which the military forces guide their actions in support of objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgement in application. In 1998 the Canadian Army stated: Military doctrine is a formal expression of military knowledge and thought, that the army accepts as being relevant at a given time, which covers the nature of conflict, the preparation of the army for conflict, and the method of engaging in conflict to achieve success ... it is descriptive rather than prescriptive, requiring judgement in application. It does not establish dogma or provide a checklist of procedures, but is rather an authoritative guide, describing how the army thinks about fighting, not how to fight. As such it attempts to be definitive enough to guide military activity, yet versatile enough to accommodate a wide variety of situations. A U.S. Air Force Air University staff study in 1948 defined military doctrine functionally as "those concepts, principles, policies, tactics, techniques, practices, and procedures which are essential to efficiency in organizing, training, equipping, and employing its tactical and service units". A U.S. Army essay written in 2016 similarly defined military doctrine as "consist[ing] of tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs)". In 2005 Gary Sheffield of the Defence Studies Department of King's College London/JSCSC quoted J F C Fuller's 1923 definition of doctrine as the "central idea of an army". In 1965 the Soviet Dictionary of Basic Military Terms defined military doctrine as "a state's officially accepted system of scientifically founded views on the nature of modern wars and the use of the armed forces in them. ... Military doctrine has two aspects: social-political and military-technical." The social-political side "encompasses all questions concerning methodology, economic, and social bases, the political goals of war. It is the defining and the more stable side." The other side, the military-technical, must accord with the political goals. It includes the "creation of military structure, technical equipping of the armed forces, their training, definition of forms and means of conducting operations and war as a whole". Development of doctrine: Before the development of separate doctrinal publications, many nations expressed their military philosophy through regulations. United Kingdom: Field Service Regulations were issued by the War Office in 1909, 1917, 1923, 1930, and 1935. Similar publications under various names were subsequently published. Formal British Military Doctrine was first published in 1988 and in 1996 became British Defence Doctrine applicable throughout the armed forces. France: The development of military doctrine in France came about in the aftermath of the nation's defeat during the Franco-Prussian war. The École supérieure de guerre, under the direction of its commandant, Ferdinand Foch, began developing a consistent doctrine for handling armies, corps, and divisions. Foch's 1906 work, Des principes de la guerre (translated by Hilaire Belloc as The Principles of War) expressed this doctrine. Prussia and German Empire: Prussian doctrine was published as Regulations for the Instruction of the Troops in Field Service and the Exercises of the larger Units of the 17th June, 1870. The doctrine was revised in 1887 and published in English in 1893 as The Order of Field Service of the German Army, by Karl Kaltenborn und Stachau, and once again in 1908 as Felddienst Ordnung ("Field Service Regulations"). Soviet Union: Soviet doctrine was greatly influenced by M. V. Frunze. United States: In the period between the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War, doctrine was defined by the War Department in "Field Service Regulations". In addition, many officers wrote military manuals that were printed by private publishers, such as Hardee's Tactics, used by both Confederate and Union forces. General George B. McClellan wrote a cavalry manual, Regulations and Instructions for the Field Service of the U.S. Cavalry, in 1862. The General Staff became responsible for writing Field Service Regulations. They were published in 1908, were revised in 1913 and again in 1914 based on experiences of European powers in the first months of the war. As late as 1941 U.S. Army doctrine was published in Field Service Regulations – Operations. This designation was dropped and replaced by U.S. Army Field Manuals (FM). Relationship between doctrine and strategy: Military doctrine is a key component of grand strategy. NATO's definition of strategy is "presenting the manner in which military power should be developed and applied to achieve national objectives or those of a group of nations." The official definition of strategy by the United States Department of Defense is: "Strategy is a prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve national or multinational objectives." Military strategy provides the rationale for military operations. Field Marshal Viscount Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff and co-chairman of the Anglo-US Combined Chiefs of Staff Committee for most of the Second World War, described the art of military strategy as: "to derive from the [policy] aim a series of military objectives to be achieved: to assess these objectives as to the military requirements they create, and the pre-conditions which the achievement of each is likely to necessitate: to measure available and potential resources against the requirements and to chart from this process a coherent pattern of priorities and a rational course of action." Instead, doctrine seeks to provide a common conceptual framework for a military service: what the service perceives itself to be ("Who are we?") what its mission is ("What do we do?") how the mission is to be carried out ("How do we do that?") how the mission has been carried out in history ("How did we do that in the past?") other questions. In the same way, doctrine is neither operations nor tactics. It serves as a conceptual framework uniting all three levels of warfare. Doctrine reflects the judgments of professional military officers, and to a lesser but important extent civilian leaders, about what is and is not militarily possible and necessary. Factors to consider include: military technology national geography the capabilities of adversaries the capability of one's own organization Military doctrine by country: China: Chinese military doctrine is influenced by a number of sources including an indigenous classical military tradition characterized by strategists such as Sun Tzu and modern strategists such as Mao Zedong, along with Western and Soviet influences. One distinctive characteristic of Chinese military science is that it places emphasis on the relationship between the military and society and views military force as merely one part of an overarching grand strategy. According to French newspaper Le Monde, the Chinese nuclear doctrine is to maintain a nuclear force allowing it to deter and respond to a nuclear attack. However, new evolutions show that China could allow use of its nuclear arsenal in more situations. France: Following the defeat of the French Army in the Franco-Prussian War, the French military, as part of its movements to increase professionalism, emphasized officer training at the École de Guerre. Ferdinand Foch, as an instructor, argued against the concept of a commander moving units without informing subordinates of his intentions. In doing so, a common doctrine served as a point of training. We have then, a doctrine. All the brains have been limbered up and regard all questions from an identical point of view. The fundamental idea of the problem being known, each one will solve the problem in his own fashion, and these thousand fashions, we may very well be sure, will act to direct all their efforts to a common objective.Prior to WWI, France had an offensive military doctrine. In the aftermath of WWI, France adopted a defensive military doctrine where the Maginot Line played a central role in its deterrence of Germany. Germany: Prior to WWI, Germany had an offensive military doctrine exemplified by the Schlieffen Plan. Germany also devoted considerable resources to building a fleet of battleships, which provoked fears among European powers. During World War II, Germany deployed an operational strategy sometimes referred to as Blitzkrieg in its offensives against Poland and France. German military doctrine incorporates the concept of Auftragstaktik (Mission-type tactics), which can be seen as a doctrine within which formal rules can be selectively suspended in order to overcome "friction". Carl von Clausewitz stated that "Everything in war is very simple but the simplest thing is difficult". Problems will occur with misplaced communications, troops going to the wrong location, delays caused by weather, etc., and it is the duty of the commander to do his best to overcome them. Auftragstaktik encourages commanders to exhibit initiative, flexibility and improvisation while in command. India: The current combat doctrine of the Indian Army is based on the effective combined utilization of holding formations and strike formations. In the case of an attack, the holding formations would contain the enemy and strike formations would counter-attack to neutralize enemy forces. In the case of an Indian attack, the holding formations would pin enemy forces down whilst the strike formations attack at a point of Indian choosing. India's nuclear doctrine follows the policy of credible minimum deterrence, No first strike, No use of nuclear weapons on Non-nuclear states and Massive nuclear retaliation in case deterrence fails. India has recently adopted a new war doctrine known as "Cold Start" and its military has conducted exercises several times since then based on this doctrine. "Cold Start" involves joint operations between India's three services and integrated battle groups for offensive operations.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military doctrine

Auftragstaktik encourages commanders to exhibit initiative, flexibility and improvisation while in command. India: The current combat doctrine of the Indian Army is based on the effective combined utilization of holding formations and strike formations. In the case of an attack, the holding formations would contain the enemy and strike formations would counter-attack to neutralize enemy forces. In the case of an Indian attack, the holding formations would pin enemy forces down whilst the strike formations attack at a point of Indian choosing. India's nuclear doctrine follows the policy of credible minimum deterrence, No first strike, No use of nuclear weapons on Non-nuclear states and Massive nuclear retaliation in case deterrence fails. India has recently adopted a new war doctrine known as "Cold Start" and its military has conducted exercises several times since then based on this doctrine. "Cold Start" involves joint operations between India's three services and integrated battle groups for offensive operations. A key component is the preparation of India's forces to be able to quickly mobilize and take offensive actions without crossing the enemy's nuclear-use threshold. A leaked US diplomatic cable disclosed that it was intended to be taken off the shelf and implemented within a 72-hour period during a crisis. Israel: Strategic doctrine: Israel's military doctrine is formed by its small size and lack of strategic depth. To compensate, it relies on deterrence, including through a presumed nuclear weapons arsenal. It tries to overcome its quantitative disadvantage by staying qualitatively superior. Its doctrine is based on a strategy of defense but is operationally offensive, by pre-empting enemy threats and securing a quick, decisive victory if deterrence fails. Israel maintains a heightened state of readiness, advanced early warning systems, and a robust military intelligence capability to ensure attackers cannot take advantage of Israel's lack of strategic depth. Early warning and speedy victory is also desired because the Israel Defense Forces rely heavily on reservists during major wars; lengthy mobilization of reservists is costly to the Israeli economy. Israeli doctrine is constructed with the assumption that Israel would be largely self-sufficient in its war-fighting, without nearby allies to assist. Israel's emphasis on operational offense was espoused by its first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, as early as 1948 (during the 1948 Arab–Israeli war): If [the Arabs] attack us as they did this time, we shall transfer the war to the gates of their country. ... We do not intend to conduct ... a static defensive war at the venue where we were attacked. If they attack us again, in the future, we want the war to be waged not in our country, but in the enemy's country, and we want to be not on the defensive but on the attack. Yitzhak Rabin, who was Chief of the IDF Staff during the Six-Day War, offered a similar explanation for Israel's pre-emptive beginning to the war: The basic philosophy of Israel was not to initiate war, unless an act of war was carried out against us. We then lived within the lines prior to the Six-Day War, lines that gave no depth to Israel—and therefore, Israel was in a need, whenever there would be a war, to go immediately on the offensive—to carry the war to the enemy's land. Tactical doctrine: IDF command has been decentralized since the early days of the state, with junior commanders receiving broad authority within the context of mission-type orders. Israeli junior officer training has emphasized the need to make quick decisions in battle to prepare them appropriately for maneuver warfare. Russia and the Soviet Union: The Soviet meaning of military doctrine was very different from U.S. military usage of the term. Soviet Minister of Defence Marshal Andrei Grechko defined it in 1975 as "a system of views on the nature of war and methods of waging it, and on the preparation of the country and army for war, officially adopted in a given state and its armed forces". In Soviet times, theorists emphasised both the political and "military-technical" sides of military doctrine, while from the Soviet point of view, Westerners ignored the political side. However, the political side of Soviet military doctrine, Western commentators Harriet F Scott and William Scott said, "best explained Soviet moves in the international arena". Soviet (and contemporary Russian) doctrine emphasizes combined-arms warfare as well as operational warfare. It emphasizes the initiation of military hostilities at a time, date, and location of its choosing on terms of its choosing and the extensive preparation of the battlespace for operations. Former Soviet/Russian doctrine sacrifices tactical flexibility and adaptability for strategic and operational flexibility and adaptability; tactical personnel are trained as relatively inflexible executors of specific, detailed orders, while the operational-strategic level of Russian military doctrine is where most innovation takes place. The Soviet response to problems of nuclear strategy began with classified publications. However, by 1962, with the publication in the Marshal of the Soviet Union Vasily Sokolovsky's volume, Military Strategy, the Soviets laid out their officially endorsed thoughts on the matter, and their ideas on how to cope with nuclear conflict. Sweden: In the 2000s and early 2010s, the Moderate Party–led governments transformed the Swedish Armed Forces from a Cold War posture of defence to one of participation in international operations. The assumption was that Sweden's homeland would face minimal external threats. Supreme Commander Sverker Göranson estimates that as of 2014, Swedish forces could resist a limited enemy attack for only one week. The annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and the subsequent Russian invasion of Ukraine has stirred debate within Sweden that a return to significant defensive forces and a closer alliance with NATO is necessary in the wake of Russia's actions in Ukraine. United Kingdom: For some 280 years the British Army did not have a formal 'Military Doctrine', although a huge number of publications dealing with tactics, operations and administration had been produced. However, during his tenure as Chief of the General Staff (1985–89) General Sir Nigel Bagnall directed that British Military Doctrine was to be prepared, and tasked Colonel (later General) Timothy Granville-Chapman (an artillery officer who had been his Military Assistant in Headquarters 1st British Corps) to prepare it. The first edition of British Military Doctrine (BMD) was published in 1988. It led to the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force developing their own maritime and air-power doctrines. However, in 1996 the first edition of British Defence Doctrine (BDD) was published, drawing heavily on the BMD. The Army adopted BDD as their Military Doctrine. The fourth edition of BDD was published in 2011; it uses the NATO definition of doctrine. NATO underpins the defence of the UK and its Allies, while also providing deployable expeditionary capabilities to support and defend UK interests further afield. However, until recently, most NATO doctrine has been mirrored by equivalent, but different, national Joint Doctrines. This has often caused a dilemma for UK Armed Forces committed to operations as part of a NATO-based coalition. In 2012, the Chief of Defence Staff and Permanent Undersecretary for Defence issued direction on how the UK contribution to NATO could be improved, stating that 'We should use NATO doctrine wherever we can, and ensure coherence of UK doctrine with NATO wherever we cannot.' The 2014 edition of Joint Doctrine Publication (JDP) 0-01 UK Defence Doctrine reflects this change in policy. However, the British Army had formal publications for a long time, and these amounted to its doctrine. Field Service Regulations (FSR), on the Prussian pattern, were published in 1906 and with amendments and replacement editions lasted into the Second World War. They required each arm and service to produce their own specific publications to give effect to FSR. After the Second World War FSR were replaced by various series of manuals, again with specific training pamphlets for each arm and service. These deal with operational and tactical matters. The current capstone publication for the army is Army Doctrine Publication Operations alongside maritime and air-power equivalents and joint warfare publications all under the umbrella of BDD. The four layers constituting "land doctrine" are summarised as: British Defence Doctrine – provides philosophy Joint (and Allied) Operational Doctrine and Capstone Environmental Doctrine (JDP 01 Joint Operations Archived 2011-04-14 at the Wayback Machine AJP-01 Allied Joint Operations Archived 2011-08-15 at the Wayback Machine ADP Operations – provides principles Joint Functional and Thematic Doctrine such as JDP 5-00 Campaign Planning and JDP 3-40 Security and Stabalisation provide doctrine on specific areas or themes. JDP 5-00([2] Archived 2011-04-14 at the Wayback Machine) JDP 3-40([3] Archived 2011-05-16 at the Wayback Machine) Army Field Manual (two volumes) – provides practices Land component handbooks and special to arm publications – provide procedures The Army Field Manual comprises Volumes 1 (Combined Arms Operations) in 12 parts led by "Formation Tactics" and "Battlegroup Tactics", and Volume 2 (Operations in Specific Environments) in 6 parts (desert, urban, etc.). BDD is divided into two parts: "Defence Context" and "Military Doctrine". Defence Context deals with two matters. First, the relationship between Defence policy and military strategy, and—while highlighting the utility of force – emphasizes the importance of addressing security issues through a comprehensive, rather than an exclusively military, approach.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military doctrine

JDP 5-00([2] Archived 2011-04-14 at the Wayback Machine) JDP 3-40([3] Archived 2011-05-16 at the Wayback Machine) Army Field Manual (two volumes) – provides practices Land component handbooks and special to arm publications – provide procedures The Army Field Manual comprises Volumes 1 (Combined Arms Operations) in 12 parts led by "Formation Tactics" and "Battlegroup Tactics", and Volume 2 (Operations in Specific Environments) in 6 parts (desert, urban, etc.). BDD is divided into two parts: "Defence Context" and "Military Doctrine". Defence Context deals with two matters. First, the relationship between Defence policy and military strategy, and—while highlighting the utility of force – emphasizes the importance of addressing security issues through a comprehensive, rather than an exclusively military, approach. Second it expounds the Nature of and the Principles of War, the three Levels of Warfare (Strategic, Operational and Tactical) and its evolving character. The ten Principles of War are a refined and extended version of those that appeared in FSR between the two world wars and based on the work of JFC Fuller. The Military Doctrine states that it comprises national Joint Doctrine, Higher Level Environmental Doctrine, Tactical Doctrine, Allied Doctrine and doctrine adopted or adapted from ad hoc coalition partners. The part deals with three matters. First it describes the likely employment of the British Armed Forces in pursuit of Defence policy aims and objectives. Next it explains the three components of fighting power (conceptual, physical and moral components) and the criticality of the operating context to its effective application. Finally it describes the British approach to the conduct of military operations—"the British way of war". This includes mission command, the manoeuvrist approach and a warfighting ethos that requires accepting risks. The BDD is linked to a variety of unclassified policy documents such as Defence White Papers and Strategic Defence Reviews, as well as classified Strategic Planning Guidance. The current, 2011, edition of BDD is underpinned by recent developmental and conceptual publications such as The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007–2036 and The High Level Operational Conceptual Framework, which comprises specific army, navy and air force publications. United States: Sources: The United States Constitution invests Congress with the powers to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States and to raise and support armies. Title 10 of the United States Code states what Congress expects the Army, in conjunction with the other Services, to accomplish. This includes: Preserve the peace and security and provide for the defense of the United States, its territories and possessions, and any areas it occupies; Support national policies; Implement national objectives; Overcome any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States. Key concepts: Most modern US doctrine is based around the concept of power projection and full spectrum operations, which combine offensive, defensive, and stability or civil support operations simultaneously as part of an interdependent joint or combined force to seize, retain, and exploit the initiative. They employ synchronized action—lethal and nonlethal—proportional to the mission and informed by a thorough understanding of all dimensions of the operational environment. Offensive operations defeat and destroy enemy forces, and seize terrain, resources, and population centers. They impose the commander's will on the enemy. Defensive operations defeat an enemy attack, gain time, economize forces, and develop conditions favorable for offensive or stability operations. Stability operations encompass various military missions, tasks, and activities conducted abroad to maintain or reestablish a safe and secure environment, provide essential governmental services, emergency infrastructure reconstruction, and humanitarian relief. Civil support operations are support tasks and missions to homeland civil authorities for domestic emergencies, and for designated law enforcement and other activities. This includes operations dealing with the consequences of natural or manmade disasters, accidents, and incidents within the homeland. Under President Lyndon Johnson it was stated that the US armed forces should be able to fight two—at one point, two-and-a-half—wars at the same time. This was defined to mean a war in Europe against the Soviet Union, a war in Asia against China or North Korea, and a "half-war" as well—in other words, a "small" war in the Third World. When Richard Nixon took office in 1969, he altered the formula to state that the United States should be able to fight one-and-a-half wars simultaneously. This doctrine remained in place until 1989–90, when President George H. W. Bush ordered the "Base Force" study which forecast a substantial cut in the military budget, an end to the Soviet Union's global threat, and the possible beginning of new regional threats. In 1993, President Bill Clinton ordered a "Bottom-Up Review", based on which a strategy called "win-hold-win" was declared—enough forces to win one war while holding off the enemy in another conflict, then moving on to win it after the first war is over. The final draft was changed to read that the United States must be able to win two "major regional conflicts" simultaneously. The current strategic doctrine, which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued in his Quadrennial Defense Review of early 2001 (before the 9/11 attacks), is a package of U.S. military requirements known as 1-4-2-1. The first 1 refers to defending the US homeland. The 4 refers to deterring hostilities in four key regions of the world. The 2 means the US armed forces must have the strength to win swiftly in two near-simultaneous conflicts in those regions. The final 1 means that the US forces must win one of those conflicts "decisively". The general policy objectives are to (1) assure allies and friends; (2) dissuade future military competition, (3) deter threats and coercion against U.S. interests, and (4) if deterrence fails, decisively defeat any adversary. United States Department of Defense: The Department of Defense publishes Joint Publications which state all-services doctrine. The current basic doctrinal publication is Joint Publication 3-0, "Doctrine for Joint Operations". United States Air Force: Headquarters, United States Air Force, publishes current USAF doctrine. The lead agency for developing Air Force doctrine is the LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education; the Air Staff International Standardization Office works on multinational standardization, such as NATO Standardization Agreements (STANAGs), and agreements between the American, British, Canadian, and Australian Armies and Navies (ABCA) that affect the Air Force. Currently the basic Air Force doctrinal documents are the 10-series of Air Force publications. United States Army: The United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is responsible for developing Army doctrine. TRADOC was developed early in the 1970s as a response to the American Army's difficulties in the Vietnam War, and is one of the reforms that improved Army professionalism. Currently the capstone Army doctrinal document is Army Doctrine Publication 3-0, Unified Land Operations (published October 2011). United States Navy: The Naval Warfare Development Command (NWDC) Doctrine Department coordinates development, publication, and maintenance of United States Navy doctrine. Currently the basic unclassified naval doctrinal documents are Naval Doctrine Publications 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. NWDC is also the United States Navy lead for NATO and multinational maritime doctrine and operational standardization. United States Marine Corps: The Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC) has responsibility for United States Marine Corps doctrine. The capstone doctrinal document is Warfighting (MCDP1), along with MCDP's 1-1, 1–2, and 1–3 (Strategy, Campaigning, and Tactics, respectively). MCDP 1-0 (Marine Corps Operations) translates the philosophical-based capstone/keystone publications into operational doctrine. United States Coast Guard: Headquarters, United States Coast Guard, published Coast Guard Publication 1, U.S. Coast Guard: America's Maritime Guardian, which is the source of USCG doctrine. SFR Yugoslavia: With the passing of the National Defense Law of 1969, Yugoslavia adopted a total war military doctrine named Total National Defense or Total People's Defense[b]. It was inspired by the Yugoslav People's Liberation War against the fascist occupiers and their collaborators in the Second World War, and was designed to allow Yugoslavia to maintain or eventually reestablish its independent and non-aligned status should an invasion occur. According to it, any citizen who resists an aggressor is a member of the armed forces, thus the whole population could be turned into a monolithic resistance army. Starting from the elementary school education, over high schools, universities, organizations and companies, the authorities prepared the entire population to contest an eventual occupation of the country and finally to liberate it. For this purpose, the Territorial Defense Forces (TO) would be formed to mobilize the population in case of an aggression. The combat readiness of the TO meant that the steps of organization and training could be bypassed after the start of hostilities. The TO would supplement the regular Yugoslav People's Army, giving it greater defensive depth and an armed local population ready to support combat actions. Large numbers of armed civilians would increase the cost of an invasion to a potential aggressor. The most likely scenario in the doctrine being used was a general war between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military doctrine

According to it, any citizen who resists an aggressor is a member of the armed forces, thus the whole population could be turned into a monolithic resistance army. Starting from the elementary school education, over high schools, universities, organizations and companies, the authorities prepared the entire population to contest an eventual occupation of the country and finally to liberate it. For this purpose, the Territorial Defense Forces (TO) would be formed to mobilize the population in case of an aggression. The combat readiness of the TO meant that the steps of organization and training could be bypassed after the start of hostilities. The TO would supplement the regular Yugoslav People's Army, giving it greater defensive depth and an armed local population ready to support combat actions. Large numbers of armed civilians would increase the cost of an invasion to a potential aggressor. The most likely scenario in the doctrine being used was a general war between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact. In such a situation, Yugoslavia would remain non-aligned, and it would not accept foreign troops of either alliance on its territory. The doctrine recognized the likelihood that one side or the other might try to seize Yugoslav territory as a forward staging area, to ensure lines of communication or simply to deny the territory to enemy forces. Such action would be considered aggression and would be resisted. Regardless of ideology, the occupiers would be considered Yugoslavia's enemy. Territorial Defense Forces: The Territorial Defense Forces (TO) were formed in 1969 as an integral part of the Yugoslav Total National Defense doctrine. The TO forces consisted of able-bodied civilian males and females. Between 1 and 3 million Yugoslavs between the ages of 15 and 65 would fight under TO command as irregular or guerrilla forces in wartime. In peacetime, however, about 860,000 TO troops were involved in military training and other activities. The TO concept focused on small, lightly armed infantry units fighting defensive actions on a familiar local terrain. A typical unit was a company-sized detachment. More than 2000 communes, factories, and other enterprises organized such units, which would fight in their home areas, maintaining local defense production essential to the overall war effort. The TO also included some larger, more heavily equipped units with wider operational responsibilities. The TO battalions and regiments operated in regional areas with artillery and antiaircraft guns and some armoured vehicles. Using their mobility and tactical initiative, these units would attempt to alleviate the pressure of enemy armored columns and air strikes on smaller TO units. In the coastal regions, TO units had naval missions. They operated some gunboats in support of navy operations. They were organized to defend strategic coastal areas and naval facilities against enemy amphibious landings and raids. They also trained some divers for use in sabotage and other special operations. The TO was helped by the fact that most of its citizen-soldiers were one-time JNA conscripts who had completed their term of compulsory military service. However, TO recruitment was somewhat limited by the army's desire to include as many recently released conscripts as possible in its own military reserve. Other sources of TO manpower lacked prior military service and required extensive basic training. The TO organisation was highly decentralized and independent. TO units were organized and funded by the governments in each of the Yugoslav constituent republics: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. See also: Strategy Grand strategy Naval strategy Operational level of war Military strategy Principles of war Military tactics Foreign policy doctrine Military science References: Bibliography: Chapman, Bert (2009), Military Doctrine: A Reference Handbook, ABC-CLIO, ISBN 9780313352331, retrieved 2021-04-16 Austin Long. The Soul of Armies: Counterinsurgency Doctrine and Military Culture in the US and UK. Ithaca–London: Cornell University Press, 2016. NSA, (NATO STANDARDIZATION AGENCY) (2013), AAP-6(V) NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions (PDF), archived (PDF) from the original on 2018-07-18, retrieved 2021-04-16 Christopher P. Twomey. The Military Lens: Doctrinal Difference and Deterrence Failure in Sino-American Relations. Ithaca–London: Cornell University Press, 2010. History Robert M. Cassidy. Peacekeeping in the Abyss: British and American Peacekeeping Doctrine and Practice after the Cold War. Westport, CT–London: Praeger, 2004. Aaron P. Jackson. The Roots of Military Doctrine: Change and Continuity in Understanding the Practice of Warfare. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2013. Elizabeth Kier. Imagining War: French and British Military Doctrine between the Wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998 (reprint 2017). Matthias Strohn. The German Army and the Defence of the Reich: Military Doctrine and the Conduct of the Defensive Battle 1918-1939, 2nd revised edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Soviet Willard C. Frank and Philip S. Gillette, eds. Soviet Military Doctrine from Lenin to Gorbachev, 1915-1991. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992. Raymond L. Garthoff. Deterrence and the Revolution in Soviet Military Doctrine. Brookings Institution Press, 1990. Odom, William E. (1988). "Soviet Military Doctrine". Foreign Affairs. 67 (2): 114–134. doi:10.2307/20043776. JSTOR 20043776. Harriet Fast Scott and William F. Scott. The Armed Forces of the USSR. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, 1979. Harriet Fast Scott and William F. Scott. Soviet Military Doctrine: Continuity, Formulation, and Dissemination. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, 1989. External links: Joint Electronic Library UK Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre Navy Warfare Development Command (NWDC) Military Analysis Network Air War College accessed September 27, 2006 – literally thousands of online texts and links to off-site sources Quadrennial Defense Review Report. September 30, 2001 Archived December 25, 2016, at the Wayback Machine US Military Doctrine since the Cold War accessed June 24, 2009 Fred Kaplan "The Doctrine Gap. Reality vs. the Pentagon's new strategy." Pentagon Rethinking Old Doctrine on 2 Wars- The New York Times, March 14, 2009. Joint Doctrine Ontology: A Benchmark for Military Information Systems Interoperability, Semantic Technology for Intelligence, Defense and Security, 2015

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military education and training

Recruit training: The primary and initial form of military training, recruit training, makes use of various conditioning techniques to resocialize trainees into a military system, to ensure that they will obey all orders without hesitation, and to teach basic military skills. Resocialization as a sociological concept involves the process of mentally and emotionally "retraining" individuals so that they can operate in a new environment; it promotes changes to an individual's attitudes and behaviours. The drill instructor has the task of making the service members fit for military use. Role-specific training: After their recruit training, personnel may undergo further training specific to their military role, including the use of any specialist equipment. They are then normally deemed fit for military service. Further training: Military personnel may continue to receive training during their career. See also: Military academy List of United States military schools and academies Royal Military Academy Sandhurst Royal Military College of Canada Military academies in Russia Military academies in India Military discipline Military science Refresher training Staff college == References ==

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military engineering

Etymology: The word engineer was initially used in the context of warfare, dating back to 1325 when engine’er (literally, one who operates an engine) referred to "a constructor of military engines". In this context, "engine" referred to a military machine, i. e., a mechanical contraption used in war (for example, a catapult). As the design of civilian structures such as bridges and buildings developed as a technical discipline, the term civil engineering entered the lexicon as a way to distinguish between those specializing in the construction of such non-military projects and those involved in the older discipline. As the prevalence of civil engineering outstripped engineering in a military context and the number of disciplines expanded, the original military meaning of the word "engineering" is now largely obsolete. In its place, the term "military engineering" has come to be used. History: In ancient times, military engineers were responsible for siege warfare and building field fortifications, temporary camps and roads. The most notable engineers of ancient times were the Romans and Chinese, who constructed huge siege-machines (catapults, battering rams and siege towers). The Romans were responsible for constructing fortified wooden camps and paved roads for their legions. Many of these Roman roads are still in use today. The first civilization to have a dedicated force of military engineering specialists were the Romans, whose army contained a dedicated corps of military engineers known as architecti. This group was pre-eminent among its contemporaries. The scale of certain military engineering feats, such as the construction of a double-wall of fortifications 30 miles (48 km) long, in just 6 weeks to completely encircle the besieged city of Alesia in 52 B.C.E., is an example. Such military engineering feats would have been completely new, and probably bewildering and demoralizing, to the Gallic defenders. Vitruvius is the best known of these Roman army engineers, due to his writings surviving. Examples of battles before the early modern period where military engineers played a decisive role include the Siege of Tyre under Alexander the Great, the Siege of Masada by Lucius Flavius Silva as well as the Battle of the Trench under the suggestion of Salman the Persian to dig a trench. For about 600 years after the fall of the Roman empire, the practice of military engineering barely evolved in the west. In fact, much of the classic techniques and practices of Roman military engineering were lost. Through this period, the foot soldier (who was pivotal to much of the Roman military engineering capability) was largely replaced by mounted soldiers. It was not until later in the Middle Ages, that military engineering saw a revival focused on siege warfare. Military engineers planned castles and fortresses. When laying siege, they planned and oversaw efforts to penetrate castle defenses. When castles served a military purpose, one of the tasks of the sappers was to weaken the bases of walls to enable them to be breached before means of thwarting these activities were devised. Broadly speaking, sappers were experts at demolishing or otherwise overcoming or bypassing fortification systems. With the 14th-century development of gunpowder, new siege engines in the form of cannons appeared. Initially military engineers were responsible for maintaining and operating these new weapons just as had been the case with previous siege engines. In England, the challenge of managing the new technology resulted in the creation of the Office of Ordnance around 1370 in order to administer the cannons, armaments and castles of the kingdom. Both military engineers and artillery formed the body of this organization and served together until the office's successor, the Board of Ordnance was disbanded in 1855. In comparison to older weapons, the cannon was significantly more effective against traditional medieval fortifications. Military engineering significantly revised the way fortifications were built in order to be better protected from enemy direct and plunging shot. The new fortifications were also intended to increase the ability of defenders to bring fire onto attacking enemies. Fort construction proliferated in 16th-century Europe based on the trace italienne design. By the 18th century, regiments of foot (infantry) in the British, French, Prussian and other armies included pioneer detachments. In peacetime these specialists constituted the regimental tradesmen, constructing and repairing buildings, transport wagons, etc. On active service they moved at the head of marching columns with axes, shovels, and pickaxes, clearing obstacles or building bridges to enable the main body of the regiment to move through difficult terrain. The modern Royal Welch Fusiliers and French Foreign Legion still maintain pioneer sections who march at the front of ceremonial parades, carrying chromium-plated tools intended for show only. Other historic distinctions include long work aprons and the right to wear beards. In West Africa, the Ashanti army was accompanied to war by carpenters who were responsible for constructing shelters and blacksmiths who repaired weapons. By the 18th century, sappers were deployed in the Dahomeyan army during assaults against fortifications. The Peninsular War (1808–14) revealed deficiencies in the training and knowledge of officers and men of the British Army in the conduct of siege operations and bridging. During this war low-ranking Royal Engineers officers carried out large-scale operations. They had under their command working parties of two or three battalions of infantry, two or three thousand men, who knew nothing in the art of siegeworks. Royal Engineers officers had to demonstrate the simplest tasks to the soldiers, often while under enemy fire. Several officers were lost and could not be replaced, and a better system of training for siege operations was required. On 23 April 1812 an establishment was authorised, by Royal Warrant, to teach "Sapping, Mining, and other Military Fieldworks" to the junior officers of the Corps of Royal Engineers and the Corps of Royal Military Artificers, Sappers and Miners. The first courses at the Royal Engineers Establishment were done on an all ranks basis with the greatest regard to economy. To reduce staff the NCOs and officers were responsible for instructing and examining the soldiers. If the men could not read or write they were taught to do so, and those who could read and write were taught to draw and interpret simple plans. The Royal Engineers Establishment quickly became the centre of excellence for all fieldworks and bridging. Captain Charles Pasley, the director of the Establishment, was keen to confirm his teaching, and regular exercises were held as demonstrations or as experiments to improve the techniques and teaching of the Establishment. From 1833 bridging skills were demonstrated annually by the building of a pontoon bridge across the Medway which was tested by the infantry of the garrison and the cavalry from Maidstone. These demonstrations had become a popular spectacle for the local people by 1843, when 43,000 came to watch a field day laid on to test a method of assaulting earthworks for a report to the Inspector General of Fortifications. In 1869 the title of the Royal Engineers Establishment was changed to "The School of Military Engineering" (SME) as evidence of its status, not only as the font of engineer doctrine and training for the British Army, but also as the leading scientific military school in Europe. The dawn of the internal combustion engine marked the beginning of a significant change in military engineering. With the arrival of the automobile at the end of the 19th century and heavier than air flight at the start of the 20th century, military engineers assumed a major new role in supporting the movement and deployment of these systems in war. Military engineers gained vast knowledge and experience in explosives. They were tasked with planting bombs, landmines and dynamite. At the end of World War I, the standoff on the Western Front caused the Imperial German Army to gather experienced and particularly skilled soldiers to form "Assault Teams" which would break through the Allied trenches. With enhanced training and special weapons (such as flamethrowers), these squads achieved some success, but too late to change the outcome of the war. In early WWII, however, the Wehrmacht "Pioniere" battalions proved their efficiency in both attack and defense, somewhat inspiring other armies to develop their own combat engineers battalions. Notably, the attack on Fort Eben-Emael in Belgium was conducted by Luftwaffe glider-deployed combat engineers. The need to defeat the German defensive positions of the "Atlantic wall" as part of the amphibious landings in Normandy in 1944 led to the development of specialist combat engineer vehicles. These, collectively known as Hobart's Funnies, included a specific vehicle to carry combat engineers, the Churchill AVRE. These and other dedicated assault vehicles were organised into the specialised 79th Armoured Division and deployed during Operation Overlord – 'D-Day'. Other significant military engineering projects of World War II include Mulberry harbour and Operation Pluto. Modern military engineering still retains the Roman role of building field fortifications, road paving and breaching terrain obstacles. A notable military engineering task was, for example, breaching the Suez Canal during the Yom Kippur War. Education: Military engineers can come from a variety of engineering programs. They may be graduates of mechanical, electrical, civil, or industrial engineering. Sub-discipline: Modern military engineering can be divided into three main tasks or fields: combat engineering, strategic support, and ancillary support. Combat engineering is associated with engineering on the battlefield. Combat engineers are responsible for increasing mobility on the front lines of war such as digging trenches and building temporary facilities in war zones.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military engineering

These and other dedicated assault vehicles were organised into the specialised 79th Armoured Division and deployed during Operation Overlord – 'D-Day'. Other significant military engineering projects of World War II include Mulberry harbour and Operation Pluto. Modern military engineering still retains the Roman role of building field fortifications, road paving and breaching terrain obstacles. A notable military engineering task was, for example, breaching the Suez Canal during the Yom Kippur War. Education: Military engineers can come from a variety of engineering programs. They may be graduates of mechanical, electrical, civil, or industrial engineering. Sub-discipline: Modern military engineering can be divided into three main tasks or fields: combat engineering, strategic support, and ancillary support. Combat engineering is associated with engineering on the battlefield. Combat engineers are responsible for increasing mobility on the front lines of war such as digging trenches and building temporary facilities in war zones. Strategic support is associated with providing service in communication zones such as the construction of airfields and the improvement and upgrade of ports, roads and railways communication. Ancillary support includes provision and distribution of maps as well as the disposal of unexploded warheads. Military engineers construct bases, airfields, roads, bridges, ports, and hospitals. During peacetime before modern warfare, military engineers took the role of civil engineers by participating in the construction of civil-works projects. Nowadays, military engineers are almost entirely engaged in war logistics and preparedness. Explosives engineering: Explosives are defined as any system that produces rapidly expanding gases in a given volume in a short duration. Specific military engineering occupations also extend to the field of explosives and demolitions and their usage on the battlefield. Explosive devices have been used on the battlefield for several centuries, in numerous operations from combat to area clearance. Earliest known development of explosives can be traced back to 10th-century China where the Chinese are credited with engineering the world's first known explosive, black powder. Initially developed for recreational purposes, black powder later was utilized for military application in bombs and projectile propulsion in firearms. Engineers in the military who specialize in this field formulate and design many explosive devices to use in varying operating conditions. Such explosive compounds range from black powder to modern plastic explosives. This particular is commonly listed under the role of combat engineers who demolitions expertise also includes mine and IED detection and disposal. For more information, see Bomb disposal. Military engineering by country: Military engineers are key in all armed forces of the world, and invariably found either closely integrated into the force structure, or even into the combat units of the national troops. Brazil: Brazilian Army engineers can be part of the Quadro de Engenheiros Militares, with its members trained or professionalized by the traditional Instituto Militar de Engenharia (IME) (Military Institute of Engineering), or the Arma de Engenharia, with its members trained by the Academia Militar das Agulhas Negras (AMAN) (Agulhas Negras Military Academy). In the Brazil's Navy, engineers can occupy the Corpo de Engenheiros da Marinha, the Quadro Complementar de Oficiais da Armada and the Quadro Complementar de Oficiais Fuzileiros Navais. Officers can come from the Centro de Instrução Almirante Wandenkolk (CIAW) (Admiral Wandenkolk Instruction Center) and the Escola Naval (EN) (Naval School) which, through internal selection of the Navy, finish their graduation at the Universidade de São Paulo (USP) (University of São Paulo). The Quadro de Oficias Engenheiros of the Brazilian Air Force is occupied by engineers professionalized by Centro de Instrução e Adaptação da Aeronáutica (CIAAR) (Air Force Instruction and Adaptation Center) and trained, or specialized, by Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica (ITA) (Aeronautics Institute of Technology). Russia: Russian Empire – Pososhniye lyudi Soviet Union – Engineer Troops (Soviet Union); Assault Engineering Brigades Russia – Russian Engineer Troops United Kingdom: The Royal School of Military Engineering is the main training establishment for the British Army's Royal Engineers. The RSME also provides training for the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, other Arms and Services of the British Army, Other Government Departments, and Foreign and Commonwealth countries as required. These skills provide vital components in the Army's operational capability, and Royal Engineers are currently deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Cyprus, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kenya, Brunei, Falklands, Belize, Germany and Northern Ireland. Royal Engineers also take part in exercises in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Italy, Egypt, Jordan, Canada, Poland and the United States. United States: The prevalence of military engineering in the United States dates back to the American Revolutionary War when engineers would carry out tasks in the U.S. Army. During the war, they would map terrain to and build fortifications to protect troops from opposing forces. The first military engineering organization in the United States was the Army Corps of Engineers. Engineers were responsible for protecting military troops whether using fortifications or designing new technology and weaponry throughout the United States' history of warfare. The Army originally claimed engineers exclusively, but as the U.S. military branches expanded to the sea and sky, the need for military engineering sects in all branches increased. As each branch of the United States military expanded, technology adapted to fit their respective needs. United States Army Corps of Engineers Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency, Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadron Engineers (RED HORSE), and Prime Base Engineer Emergency Force (Prime BEEF) The United States Navy Construction Battalion Corps (better known as the Seabees) and Civil Engineer Corps United States Marine Corps Combat Engineer Battalions Other nations: Department of the Engineer Troops of the Armed Forces of Armenia Royal Australian Engineers and the Royal Australian Air Force Airfield Engineers Corps of Engineers and Military Engineer Services (MES), Bangladesh Army Canadian Military Engineers The Danish military engineering corps is almost entirely organized into one regiment, simply named "Ingeniørregimentet" ("The Engineering Regiment"). Pioniertruppe (Bundeswehr) Engineering Arm, including the Paris Fire Brigade Indian Army Corps of Engineers Indonesian Army Corps of Engineers Irish Army Engineer Corps Combat Engineering Corps of the Israel Defense Forces Engineer Regiment (Namibia) Corps of Royal New Zealand Engineers Ingeniørbataljonen ("The Engineer Battalion") Rejimen Askar Jurutera DiRaja ("Royal Engineer Regiment") Pakistan Army Corps of Engineers and the Military Engineering Service 10th Engineer Brigade South African Army Engineer Formation Sri Lanka Engineers and the Engineer Services Regiment The Le Quy Don Technical University is the main training establishment for the Vietnamese Army's Corps of Engineers See also: Related topics: Notable military engineers: References: External links: Headquarters U.S. Army Corps of Engineers NATO Military Engineering Centre of Excellence

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military exercise

Types: Command post: A Command Post Exercise (CPX) typically focuses on the battle readiness of staffs such as a particular Unified Combatant Command or one of its components at any level. It may run in parallel with an FTX or its equivalent, or as a stand-alone event for headquarters staff only with heavy emphasis on simulated events. Field: Historical names for the field exercise, or the full-scale rehearsal of military maneuvers as practice for warfare in the military services of the British Commonwealth include "schemes", while those of the military services United States are known as Field Training Exercises (FTX), or, in the case of naval forces, Fleet Exercises (FLEETEX). In a field exercise or fleet exercise, the two sides in the simulated battle are typically called "red" (simulating the enemy forces) and "blue", to avoid naming a particular adversary. This naming convention originates with the inventors of the table-top war-game (the "Kriegsspiel"), the Prussian Georg von Reisswitz; their army wore Prussian blue, so friendly forces were depicted by the color blue. Multiple forces: Several different armed forces of the same nation training together are described as having a joint exercise. Those involving forces of multiple nations are described as having a combined exercise or coalition exercise. These are called a bilateral exercise if based on security agreements between two nations, or a multilateral exercise if the agreement is between multiple nations. Simulation: Other types of exercise include the Tactical Exercise Without Troops (TEWT), also known as a sand table, map, cloth model, or computer simulation exercise. These allow commanders to manipulate models through possible scenarios in military planning. This is also called warfare simulation, or in some instances a virtual battlefield, and in the past has been described as "wargames". Such examples of modern military wargames include DARWARS, a serious game developed since 2003 by DARPA with BBN Technologies, a defense contractor which was involved in the development of packet switching, used for ARPANET, and which developed the first computer modem in 1963. Military operations and training have included different scenarios a soldier might encounter with morals and different ethics. In one military operation soldiers are frequently asked to engage in combat, humanitarian, and stabilization roles. These increase the ambiguity of a role one may encounter and challenge of ethics. This will also lead the military personnel to have to make a difficult call in challenging circumstances. Even in difficult situations and conditions, military personnel still has to follow rules and regulations such as: 1) when the right thing to do is not immediately clear; 2) when two or more important principles or values support different actions, and 3) when some harm will result, regardless of the actions taken (Defense Ethics Program, Department of National Defense, 2012). These simulations involve crude living conditions, sleep deprivations, time limit, and either lack or ambiguous amount of information. A subset of simulated exercises is the Table Top Exercise (TTX), typically limited to senior personnel stepping through the decision-making processes they would employ in a crisis, a contingency, or general warfare. History: The use of military exercises and war games can be found to date back to as early as the early 19th century, wherein it was the officers of the Prussian Army who created the contemporary, tactical form of wargames that have since been more widely used and developed by other military conglomerations throughout the world. Non-tactical forms of wargames have existed for much longer, however, in the forms of tabletop games such as chess and Go. The modern use of military exercises grew out of the military need to study warfare and to reenact old battles for learning purposes. During the age of Kabinettskriege (Cabinet wars), Frederick the Great, King of Prussia from 1740 to 1786, "put together his armies as a well-oiled clockwork mechanism whose components were robot-like warriors. No individual initiative was allowed to Frederick's soldiers; their only role was to cooperate in the creation of walls of projectiles through synchronized firepower." This was in the pursuit of a more effective army, and such practices made it easier to look at war from a top-down perspective. Disciplined troops should respond predictably, allowing study to be confined to maneuvers and command. Prussia's victory over the Second French Empire in the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71) is sometimes partly credited to the training of Prussian officers with the wargame Kriegsspiel, which was invented around 1811 and gained popularity with many officers in the Prussian army. These first wargames were played with dice which represented "friction", or the intrusion of less than ideal circumstances during a real war (including morale, meteorology, the fog of war, etc.). 21st century militaries still use wargames to simulate future wars and model their reaction. According to Manuel de Landa, after World War II the Command, Control and Communications (C3) was transferred from the military staff to the RAND Corporation, the first think tank. Around the mid to late 20th century, computer simulated war games were created to replace traditional war gaming methods with the goal of optimizing and speeding up the process and making it possible to analyze more complex scenarios with greater ease. In 1958, the Naval War college installed a computer war game system where their traditional war gaming activities were held. The system was called the Navy Electronic Warfare System, and cost over $10 million to install. The change from traditional war gaming methods to electronic computer simulated ones meant that the value and accuracy of a war game simulation was less dependent on skill and individual experiences, and more dependent on quantitative data and complicated analysis methods. Von Neumann was employed by the RAND Corporation, and his game theory was used in wargames to model nuclear dissuasion during the Cold War. Thus, the U.S. nuclear strategy was defined using wargames, "SAM" representing the U.S. and "IVAN" representing the Soviet Union. Early game theory included only zero-sum games, which means that when one player won, the other automatically lost. The prisoner's dilemma, which models the situation of two prisoners in which each one is given the choice to betray or not the other, gave three alternatives to the game: Neither prisoners betrays the other, and both are given short-term sentences One prisoner betrays the other, and is freed, while the other gets a long sentence Both prisoners betray each other, and both are given mid-sized sentences This model gave the basis for the massive retaliation nuclear doctrine. The zero-sum fallacy and cooperative games would be theorized only later, while the evolution of nuclear technology and missiles made the massive retaliation nuclear strategy obsolete. List of military exercises: Current and recurring: Former, significant: See also: Aggressor squadron Maneuver warfare Flanking maneuver Live fire exercise Pincer movement Simulation References: External links: Complete 911 Timeline: Center for Cooperative Research – Military exercises up to 9/11

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military history

Popular versus academic military history: In terms of the history profession in major countries, military history is an orphan, despite its enormous popularity with the general public. William H. McNeill points out: This branch of our discipline flourishes in an intellectual ghetto. The 144 books in question [published in 1968-78] fall into two distinct classes: works aimed at a popular readership, written by journalists and men of letters outside academic circles, and professional work nearly always produced within the military establishment.... The study of military history in universities remains seriously underdeveloped. Indeed, lack of interest in and disdain for military history probably constitute one of the strangest prejudices of the profession. In recent decades University level courses in military history remain popular; often they use films to humanize the combat experience. For example, Eugene P. A. Scleh, history professor at the University of Maine, has explored the advantages and problems of teaching a course of "Modern War and Its Images" entirely through films. Students said they found the documentaries more valuable than the dramas. However, military historians are frustrated by their marginal status in major history departments. Academic historians concerned with military topics have their own scholarly organization, Society for Military History. Since 1937 it has published The Journal of Military History. Its four issues a year include scholarly articles reviews of new books, and a bibliography of new publications and dissertations. The Society has 2300 members, holds an annual convention, and gives out prizes for the best scholarship. Historiography of military history: Historiography is the study of the history and method of the discipline of history or the study of a specialised topic. In this case, military history with an eye to gaining an accurate assessment of conflicts using all available sources. For this reason military history is periodised, creating overlaying boundaries of study and analysis in which descriptions of battles by leaders may be unreliable due to the inclination to minimize mention of failure and exaggerate success. Military historians use Historiographical analysis in an effort to allow an unbiased, contemporary view of records. One military historian, Jeremy Black, outlined problems 21st-century military historians face as an inheritance of their predecessors: Eurocentricity, a technological bias, a focus on leading military powers and dominant military systems, the separation of land from sea and recently air conflicts, the focus on state-to-state conflict, a lack of focus on political "tasking" in how forces are used. If these challenges were not sufficient for military historians, the limits of method are complicated by the lack of records, either destroyed or never recorded due to their value as a military secret. Scholars still do not know the exact nature of Greek fire, for instance. Researching Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, for example, have presented unique challenges to historians due to records that were destroyed to protect classified military information, among other reasons. Historians use their knowledge of government regulation and military organization, and employing a targeted and systematic research strategy to piece together war histories. Despite these limits, wars are some of the most studied and detailed periods of human history. Military historians have often compared organization, tactical and strategic ideas, leadership, and national support of the militaries of different nations. In the early 1980s, historian Jeffrey Kimball studied the influence of a historian's political position on current events on interpretive disagreement regarding the causes of 20th century wars. He surveyed the ideological preferences of 109 active diplomatic historians in the United States as well as 54 active military historians. He finds that their current political views are moderately correlated with their historiographical interpretations. A clear position on the left-right continuum regarding capitalism was apparent in most cases. All groups agreed with the proposition, "historically, Americans have tended to view questions of their national security in terms of such extremes as good vs. evil." Though the Socialists were split, the other groups agreed that "miscalculation and/or misunderstanding of the situation" had caused U.S. interventionism." Kimball reports that: Of historians in the field of diplomatic history, 7% are Socialist, 19% are Other, 53% are Liberal, 11% are None and 10% Conservative. Of military historians, 0% are Socialist, 8% are Other, 35% are Liberal, 18% are None and 40% are Conservative. Online resources: People interested in military history from all periods of time, and all subtopics, are increasingly turning to the Internet for many more resources than are typically available in nearby libraries. Since 1993, one of the most popular sites, with over 4000 members (subscriptions are free) has been H-WAR, sponsored by the H-Net network based at Michigan State University. H-War has six coeditors, and an academic advisory board that sets policy. It sponsors daily moderated discussions of current topics, announcements of new publications and conferences, and reports on developments at conferences. The H-Net family of lists has sponsored and published over 46,000 scholarly book reviews, thousands of which deal with books in military history broadly conceived. Wikipedia itself has a very wide coverage of military history, with over 180,000 articles. Its editors sponsor Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and encourage readers to join. Military and war museums: Military museums specialize in military histories; they are often organized from a national point of view, where a museum in a particular country will have displays organized around conflicts in which that country has taken part. They typically take a broad view of warfare's role in the nation's history. They typically include displays of weapons and other military equipment, uniforms, wartime propaganda, and exhibits on civilian life during wartime, and decorations, among others. A military museum may be dedicated to a particular or area, such as the Imperial War Museum Duxford for military aircraft, Deutsches Panzermuseum for tanks, the Lange Max Museum for the Western Front (World War I), the International Spy Museum for espionage, The National World War I Museum for World War I, the "D-Day Paratroopers Historical Center" (Normandy) for WWII airborne, or more generalist, such as the Canadian War Museum or the Musée de l'Armée. For the Italian alpine wall one can find the most popular museum of bunkers in the small museum n8bunker at Olang / Kronplatz in the heard of the dolomites of South Tyrol. The U.S. Army and the state National Guards operate 98 military history museums across the United States and three abroad. Curators debate how or whether the goal of providing diverse representations of war, in terms of positive and negative aspects of warfare. War is seldom presented as a good thing, but soldiers are heavily praised. David Lowenthal has observed that in today's museums, "nothing seems too horrendous to commemorate". Yet as Andrew Whitmarsh notes, "museums frequently portray a sanitised version of warfare." The actual bomber that dropped the atomic bomb on Japan became the focus of an angry national controversy with veterans attacking curators and historians when the Smithsonian Institution planned to put its fuselage on public display in 1995. The uproar led to cancellation of the exhibit. Early historians: The documentation of military history begins with the confrontation between Sumer (current Iraq) and Elam (current Iran) c. 2700 BC near the modern Basra. Other prominent records in military history are the Trojan War in Homer's Iliad (though its historicity has been challenged), The Histories by Herodotus (484–425 BC) who is often called the "father of history". Next was Thucydides whose impartiality, despite being an Athenian, allowed him to take advantage of his exile to research the war from different perspectives by carefully examining documents and interviewing eyewitnesses. An approach centered on the analysis of a leader was taken by Xenophon (430–355 BC) in Anabasis, recording the expedition of Cyrus the Younger into Anatolia. The memoirs of the Roman Julius Caesar (100–44 BC) enable a comparative approach for campaigns such as Commentarii de Bello Gallico and Commentarii de Bello Civili. Technological evolution: The nature of warfare never changes, only its superficial manifestations. Joshua and David, Hector and Achilles would recognize the combat that our soldiers and Marines have waged in the alleys of Somalia and Iraq. The uniforms evolve, bronze gives way to titanium, arrows may be replaced by laser-guided bombs, but the heart of the matter is still killing your enemies until any survivors surrender and do your will. New weapons development can dramatically alter the face of war, the cost of warfare, the preparations, and the training of soldiers and leaders. A rule of thumb is that if your enemy has a potentially war winning weapon, you have to either match it or neutralize it. Ancient era: Chariots originated around 2000 BC. The chariot was an effective, fast weapon; while one man controlled the maneuvering of the chariot, a second bowman could shoot arrows at enemy soldiers. These became crucial to the maintenance of several governments, including the New Egyptian Kingdom and the Shang dynasty and the nation states of the early to middle Zhou dynasty. Some of the military unit types and technologies which were developed in the ancient world are: Slinger Hoplite Auxiliaries Infantry Archery Chariots Cavalry For settled agrarian civilizations, the infantry became the core of military action. The infantry started as opposing armed groups of soldiers underneath commanders. The Greeks and early Romans used rigid, heavily armed phalanxes.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military history

A rule of thumb is that if your enemy has a potentially war winning weapon, you have to either match it or neutralize it. Ancient era: Chariots originated around 2000 BC. The chariot was an effective, fast weapon; while one man controlled the maneuvering of the chariot, a second bowman could shoot arrows at enemy soldiers. These became crucial to the maintenance of several governments, including the New Egyptian Kingdom and the Shang dynasty and the nation states of the early to middle Zhou dynasty. Some of the military unit types and technologies which were developed in the ancient world are: Slinger Hoplite Auxiliaries Infantry Archery Chariots Cavalry For settled agrarian civilizations, the infantry became the core of military action. The infantry started as opposing armed groups of soldiers underneath commanders. The Greeks and early Romans used rigid, heavily armed phalanxes. The Macedonians and Hellenistic states would adopt phalanx formations with sarissa pikemen. The Romans would later adopt more flexible maniples from their neighbors which made them extremely successful in the field of battle. The kingdoms of the Warring States in East Asia also adopted infantry combat, a transition from chariot warfare from centuries earlier. Archers were a major component of many ancient armies, notably those of the Persians, Scythians, Egyptians, Nubians, Indians, Chinese, Koreans and Japanese. Cavalry became an important tool. In the Sicilian Expedition, led by Athens in an attempt to subdue Syracuse, the well-trained Syracusan cavalry became crucial to the success of the Syracusans. Macedonian Alexander the Great effectively deployed his cavalry forces to secure victories. In battles such as the Battle of Cannae of the Second Punic War, and the Battle of Carrhae of the Roman-Persian Wars, the importance of the cavalry would be repeated. There were also horse archers, who had the ability to shoot on horseback—the Parthians, Scythians, Mongols, and other various steppe people were especially fearsome with this tactic. By the 3rd–4th century AD, heavily armored cavalry became widely adopted by the Parthians, Sasanians, Byzantines, Eastern Han dynasty and Three Kingdoms, etc. The early Indo-Iranians developed the use of chariots in warfare. The scythed chariot was later invented in India and soon adopted by the Persians. War elephants were sometimes deployed for fighting in ancient warfare. They were first used in India and later adopted by the Persians. War elephants were also used in the Battle of the Hydaspes River, and by Hannibal in the Second Punic War against the Romans. One of the most important military transactions of the ancient world was Chandragupta Maurya's gift of 500 elephants to Seleucus I Nicator. Naval warfare was often crucial to military success. Early navies used sailing ships without cannons; often the goal was to ram the enemy ships and cause them to sink. There was human oar power, often using slaves, built up to ramming speed. Galleys were used in the 3rd millennium BC by the Cretans. The Greeks later advanced these ships. In 1210 BC, the first recorded naval battle was fought between Suppiluliuma II, king of the Hittites, and Cyprus, which was defeated. In the Greco-Persian Wars, the navy became of increasing importance. Triremes were involved in more complicated sea-land operations. Themistocles helped to build up a stronger Greek navy, composed of 310 ships, and defeated the Persians at the Battle of Salamis, ending the Persian invasion of Greece. In the First Punic War, the war between Carthage and Rome started with an advantage to Carthage because of their naval experience. A Roman fleet was built in 261 BC, with the addition of the corvus that allowed Roman soldiers to board enemy ships. The bridge would prove effective at the Battle of Mylae, resulting in a Roman victory. The Vikings, in the 8th century AD, invented a ship propelled by oars with a dragon decorating the prow, hence called the Drakkar. The 12th century AD Song dynasty invented ships with watertight bulkhead compartments while the 2nd century BC Han dynasty invented rudders and sculled oars for their warships. Fortifications are important in warfare. Early hill-forts were used to protect inhabitants in the Iron Age. They were primitive forts surrounded by ditches filled with water. Forts were then built out of mud bricks, stones, wood, and other available materials. Romans used rectangular fortresses built out of wood and stone. As long as there have been fortifications, there have been contraptions to break in, dating back to the times of Romans and earlier. Siege warfare is often necessary to capture forts. Middle-ages: Some of the military unit types and technologies which were used in the medieval period are: Artillery Cataphract Condottieri Fyrd Rashidun Mobile guard Mamluk Janissary Knight (see also: Chivalry) Crossbow Pikeman Samurai Sipahi Trebuchet Bows and arrows were often used by combatants. Egyptians shot arrows from chariots effectively. The crossbow was developed around 500 BC in China, and was used heavily in the Middle Ages. The English/Welsh longbow from the 12th century also became important in the Middle Ages. It helped to give the English a large early advantage in the Hundred Years' War, even though the English were eventually defeated. The Battle of Crécy and the Battle of Agincourt are excellent examples of how to destroy an enemy using a longbow. It dominated battlefields for over a century. Gunpowder: There is evidence for gunpowder evolving slowly from formulations by Chinese alchemists as early as the 4th century, at first as experiments for life force and metal transmutation, and later experiments as pyrotechnics and incendiaries. By the 10th century, the developments in gunpowder led to many new weapons that were improved over time. The Chinese used incendiary devices based on this in siege warfare against the Mongols starting in the mid 13th century. "Pots with wicks of flax or cotton were used, containing a combination of sulfur, saltpeter (potassium nitrate), aconitine, oil, resin, ground charcoal and wax." Joseph Needham argued the Chinese were able to destroy buildings and walls using such devices. Such experimentation was not present in Western Europe, where the combination of saltpeter, sulfur and charcoal were used exclusively for explosives and as a propellant in firearms. What the Chinese often referred to as the "fire drug" arrived in Europe, fully fleshed out, as gunpowder. Cannons were first used in Europe in the early 14th century, and played a vital role in the Hundred Years' War. The first cannons were simply welded metal bars in the form of a cylinder, and the first cannonballs were made of stone. By 1346, at the Battle of Crécy, the cannon had been used; at the Battle of Agincourt they would be used again. The first infantry firearms, from fire lances to hand cannons, were held in one hand, while the explosive charge was ignited by a lit match or hot coal held in the other hand. In the mid-15th century came the matchlock, allowing the gun to be aimed and fired while held steady with both hands, as used in the arquebus. Starting about 1500, clever but complicated firing mechanisms were invented to generate sparks to ignite the powder instead of a lit match, starting with the wheel lock, snaplock, snaphance, and finally the flintlock mechanism, which was simple and reliable, becoming standard with the musket by the early 17th century. At the beginning of the 16th century, the first European fire ships were used. Ships were filled with flammable materials, set on fire, and sent to enemy lines. This tactic was successfully used by Francis Drake to scatter the Spanish Armada at the Battle of Gravelines, and would later be used by the Chinese, Russians, Greeks, and several other countries in naval battles. Naval mines were invented in the 17th century, though they were not used in great numbers until the American Civil War. They were used heavily in the First and Second World Wars. Air-deployed naval mines were used to mine the North Vietnamese port of Haiphong during the Vietnam War. The Iraqi Navy of Saddam Hussein used naval mines extensively during the Tanker War, as part of the Iran–Iraq War. The first navigable submarine was built in 1624 by Cornelius Drebbel, it could cruise at a depth of 15 feet (5 m). However, the first military submarine was constructed in 1885 by Isaac Peral. The Turtle was developed by David Bushnell during the American Revolution. Robert Fulton then improved the submarine design by creating the Nautilus. The Howitzer, a type of field artillery, was developed in the 17th century to fire high trajectory explosive shells at targets that could not be reached by flat trajectory projectiles.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military history

They were used heavily in the First and Second World Wars. Air-deployed naval mines were used to mine the North Vietnamese port of Haiphong during the Vietnam War. The Iraqi Navy of Saddam Hussein used naval mines extensively during the Tanker War, as part of the Iran–Iraq War. The first navigable submarine was built in 1624 by Cornelius Drebbel, it could cruise at a depth of 15 feet (5 m). However, the first military submarine was constructed in 1885 by Isaac Peral. The Turtle was developed by David Bushnell during the American Revolution. Robert Fulton then improved the submarine design by creating the Nautilus. The Howitzer, a type of field artillery, was developed in the 17th century to fire high trajectory explosive shells at targets that could not be reached by flat trajectory projectiles. Organizational changes resulting in better training and intercommunication, made the concept combined arms possible, allowing the use of infantry, cavalry, and artillery in a coordinated way. Bayonets also became of wide usage to infantry soldiers. Bayonet is named after Bayonne, France where it was first manufactured in the 16th century. It is used often in infantry charges to fight in hand-to-hand combat. General Jean Martinet introduced the bayonet to the French army. They were used heavily in the American Civil War, and continued to be used in modern wars like the Invasion of Iraq. Balloons were first used in warfare at the end of the 18th century. It was first introduced in Paris of 1783; the first balloon traveled over 5 miles (8 km). Previously military scouts could only see from high points on the ground, or from the mast of a ship. Now they could be high in the sky, signalling to troops on the ground. This made it much more difficult for troop movements to go unobserved. At the end of the 18th century, iron-cased artillery rockets were successfully used militarily in India against the British by Tipu Sultan of the Kingdom of Mysore during the Anglo-Mysore Wars. Rockets were generally inaccurate at that time, though William Hale, in 1844, was able to develop a better rocket. The new rocket no longer needed the rocket stick, and had a higher accuracy. In the 1860s there were a series of advancements in rifles. The first repeating rifle was designed in 1860 by a company bought out by Winchester, which made new and improved versions. Springfield rifles arrived in the mid-19th century also. Machine guns arrived in the late 19th century. Automatic rifles and light machine guns first arrived at the beginning of the 20th century. In the later part of the 19th century, the self-propelled torpedo was developed. The HNoMS Rap was the world's first torpedo boat. Early guns and artillery: The fire lance, the predecessor of the gun, was invented in China between the tenth and eleventh century. The barrel was originally designed out of bamboo shoots, later with metal. Joseph Needham notes "all the long preparations and tentative experiments were made in China, and everything came to Islam and the West fully fledged, whether it was the fire lance or the explosive bomb, the rocket or the metal-barrel handgun and bombard." By the 1320s Europe had guns, but scholars state that the exact time and method of migration from China remains a mystery. Evidence of firearms is found in Iran and Central Asia in the late fourteenth century. It was not until roughly 1442 that guns were referenced in India. Reliable references to guns in Russia begins around 1382. An illustration of a "pot-shaped gun" found in the Holkham Hall Milemete manuscript dated to 1326 shows earliest advent of firearms in European history. The illustration shows an arrow, set in the pot-shaped gun pointed directly at a structure. Archaeological evidence of such "gun arrows" were discovered in Eltz Castle, "dated by relation to a historical event (a feud with the Archbishop of Trier in 1331–36 leading to a siege), seem to confirm again that this was at least one of the types of guns like the Milemete used in these very early examples." According to Peter Fraser Purton, the best evidence of the earliest gun in Europe is the Loshult gun, dated to the fourteenth century. Discovered in 1861, the Loshult was made of bronze measured 11.8 inches in length. A replica of the Loshult was created, using similar gunpowder compounds with present-day materials, to determine the effectiveness of the weapon. The Gunpowder Research Group, who designed the recreation, found that at high elevations, the Loshult could fire as far as 1300 meters. Though inaccurate, missing targets further than 200 meters, the Loshult could fire a range of projectiles such as arrows and shot. It was determined that the Loshult could be effectively fired at ranks of soldiers and structures. Written works from the Cabinet des Titres of the Imperial Library of Paris has found evidence of canons in France in 1338. The works illustrate canons being used on-board ships at the Rouen during that time. "...an iron Fire-arm, which was provided with forty-eight bolts, made of iron and freather; also one pound of saltpetre and half a pound of sulphur to make the powder propel arrows." Researchers have been unable to determine the sizes of these cannons and others, outside the artifacts recovered. Sir Henry Brackenbury was able to surmise the approximate size of these cannons by comparing receipts for both the firearms and the corresponding amounts of gunpowder purchased. The receipts show a transaction for "25 Livres for 5 canons." Brackenbury was able to deduce, when comparing the costs of the cannons and the gunpowder apportioned, that they each iron cannon weighed approximately 25 lbs, while the brass cannons weighed roughly 22 lbs. Philip the Bold (1363–1404) is credited with creating the most effective artillery power in Europe in the late fourteenth century, effectively creating the Burgundian estate. Philip's development of a large artillery army made the small country a reputable force against larger empires such as England and France. Philip had achieved this by establishing a large scale artillery manufacturing economy in Burgundy. Philip used his new cache of artillery to help the French capture an English-held fortress of Odruik. The artillery used to take Odruik used cannonballs measuring to about 450 pounds. Large artillery was a major contributing factor to the fall of Constantinople at the hands of Mehmed the Conqueror (1432–1481). Having resigned his position as ruler due to youth and inexperience in 1446, Mehmed moved to the Ottoman capital of Manisa. After his uncle, Murad II died in 1451, Mehmed once again became Sultan. He turned his attention to claiming the Byzantine capital, Constantinople. Mehmed, like Philip, started mass-producing cannons by enticing craftsmen to his cause with money and freedom. For 55 days, Constantinople was bombarded with artillery fire, throwing cannonballs as large as 800 lbs at its walls. On May 29, 1453, Constantinople fell into Ottoman control. Early firearm tactics: As guns and artillery became more advanced and prevalent, so to did the tactics by which they were implemented. According to Historian Michael Roberts "...a military revolution began with the broad adoption of firearms and artillery by late sixteenth-century European armies." Infantry with firearms replaced cavalry. Empires adapted their strongholds to withstand artillery fire. Eventually drilling strategies and battlefield tactics were adapted for the evolution in firearms use. In Japan, at the same time during the sixteenth-century, this military evolution was also taking hold. These changes included a universal adoption of firearms, tactical developments for effective use, logistical restructuring within the military itself, and "the emergence of centralized and political and institutional relationships indicative of the early modern order." Tactically, beginning with Oda Nobunaga, the technique known as "volleying" or countermarch drills were implemented. Volley fire is an organized implementation of firearms, where infantry are structured in ranks. The ranks will alternate between loading and firing positions, allowing more consistent rates of fire and preventing enemies from taking over a position while members reload. Historical evidence shows that Oda Nobunaga implemented his volley technique successfully in 1575, twenty years before evidence of such a technique is shown in Europe. The first indications of the countermarch technique in Europe was by Lord William Louis of Nassau (1538–1574) in the mid-1590s. Korea also seemed to be adapting the volley technique, earlier than even the Japanese. "Koreans seem to have employed some kind of volley principle with guns by 1447, when the Korean King Sejong the Great instructed his gunners to shoot their 'fire barrels' in squads of five, taking turns firing and loading." This was on display during what Kenneth Swope called the First Great East Asian War, when Japan was trying to take control and subjugate Korea. Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1537–1598) made a failed invasion of Korea, which lasted six years, eventually pushed back by the Koreans with the aid of Ming China. Japan, using overwhelming firepower, had many early victories on the Korean peninsulas.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military history

The first indications of the countermarch technique in Europe was by Lord William Louis of Nassau (1538–1574) in the mid-1590s. Korea also seemed to be adapting the volley technique, earlier than even the Japanese. "Koreans seem to have employed some kind of volley principle with guns by 1447, when the Korean King Sejong the Great instructed his gunners to shoot their 'fire barrels' in squads of five, taking turns firing and loading." This was on display during what Kenneth Swope called the First Great East Asian War, when Japan was trying to take control and subjugate Korea. Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1537–1598) made a failed invasion of Korea, which lasted six years, eventually pushed back by the Koreans with the aid of Ming China. Japan, using overwhelming firepower, had many early victories on the Korean peninsulas. Though the Koreans had similar manpower, "the curtain of arrows thrown up by defenders was wiped out by [Japanese] gunfire." After the Japanese were finally pushed back in 1598, sweeping military reforms took place in Korea, largely based on updating and implementing the volley technique with firearms. It was Qi Jiguang, a Ming Chinese General that provided the original treatise, disseminated to Koreans, that aided in this venture. In these manuals, Qi "...gave detailed instructions in the use of small group tactics, psychological warfare, and other 'modern' techniques." Qi emphasized repetitive drilling, dividing men into smaller groups, separating the strong from weak. Qi's ethos was one of synthesizing smaller groups, trained in various tactical formations, into larger companies, battalions and armies. By doing this they could "operate as eyes, hands, and feet..." aiding to overall unit cohesion. Modern technologies: At the start of the World Wars, various nations had developed weapons that were a surprise to their adversaries, leading to a need to learn from this, and alter how to combat them. Flame throwers were first used in the First World War. The French were the first to introduce the armored car in 1902. Then in 1918, the British produced the first armored troop carrier. Many early tanks were proof of concept but impractical until further development. In World War I, the British and French held a crucial advantage due to their superiority in tanks; the Germans had only a few dozen A7V tanks, as well as 170 captured tanks. The British and French both had several hundred each. The French tanks included the 13 ton Schneider CA1, with a 75 mm gun, and the British had the Mark IV and Mark V tanks. On December 17, 1903, the Wright Brothers performed the first controlled, powered, heavier-than-air flight; it went 39 meters (120 ft). In 1907, the first helicopter flew, but it wasn't practical for usage. Aviation became important in World War I, in which several aces gained fame. In 1911 an aircraft took off from a warship for the first time. Landings on a cruiser were another matter. This led to the development of an aircraft carrier with a decent unobstructed flight deck. Chemical warfare exploded into the public consciousness in World War I but may have been used in earlier wars without as much human attention. The Germans used gas-filled shells at the Battle of Bolimov on January 3, 1915. These were not lethal, however. In April 1915, the Germans developed a chlorine gas that was highly lethal, and used it to moderate effect at the Second Battle of Ypres. Gas masks were invented in matter of weeks, and poison gas proved ineffective at winning battles. It was made illegal by all nations in the 1920s. World War II gave rise to even more technology. The worth of aircraft grew from mostly reconnaissance to strategic bombing and more. The worth of the aircraft carrier was proved in the battles between the United States and Japan like the Battle of Midway. Radar was independently invented by the Allies and Axis powers. It used radio waves to detect objects. Molotov cocktails were invented by General Franco in the Spanish Civil War, directing the Nationalists to use them against Soviet tanks in the assault on Toledo. The atomic bomb was developed by the Manhattan Project and dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, quickly and controversially ending World War II. During the Cold War, the main powers engaged in a Nuclear arms race which comprised the making of atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, and more advanced nuclear bombs. In the space race, both nations attempted to launch human beings into space, to the moon and send satellites. Other technological advances were centered on intelligence (like the spy satellite) and missiles (ballistic missiles, cruise missiles). The nuclear submarine was invented in 1955. This meant submarines no longer needed to surface as often, and could run more quietly. They evolved into underwater missile platforms. Periods of military history: Prehistoric warfare: Prehistoric warfare refers to war that occurred between societies without recorded history. The Tollense valley battlefield is the oldest evidence of a large scale battle in Europe. More than 4,000 warriors fought in a battle on the site in the 13th century BC. Ancient warfare: Much of what we know of ancient history is the history of militaries: their conquests, their movements, and their technological innovations. There are many reasons for this. Kingdoms and empires, the central units of control in the ancient world, could only be maintained through military force. Due to limited agricultural ability, there were relatively few areas that could support large communities, therefore fighting was common. The Umma–Lagash war was one of the first wars in recorded history, fought between the Sumerian city-states of Lagash and Umma. The border conflict over the fertile Guedena region lasted for several generations. Weapons and armor, designed to be sturdy, tended to last longer than other artifacts, and thus a great deal of surviving artifacts recovered tend to fall in this category as they are more likely to survive. Weapons and armor were also mass-produced to a scale that makes them quite plentiful throughout history, and thus more likely to be found in archaeological digs. Such items were also considered signs of prosperity or virtue, and thus were likely to be placed in tombs and monuments to prominent warriors. And writing, when it existed, was often used for kings to boast of military conquests or victories. Writing, when used by the common man, also tended to record such events, as major battles and conquests constituted major events that many would have considered worthy of recording either in an epic such as the Homeric writings pertaining to the Trojan War, or even personal writings. Indeed, the earliest stories center on warfare, as war was both a common and dramatic aspect of life; the witnessing of a major battle involving many thousands of soldiers would be quite a spectacle, even today, and thus considered worthy both of being recorded in song and art, but also in realistic histories, as well as being a central element in a fictional work. Lastly, as nation states evolved and empires grew, the increased need for order and efficiency lead to an increase in the number of records and writings. Officials and armies would have good reason for keeping detailed records and accounts involving any and all things concerning a matter such as warfare that, in the words of Sun Tzu, was "a matter of vital importance to the state". For all these reasons, military history comprises a large part of ancient history. Notable militaries in the ancient world included the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks (notably the Spartans and Macedonians), Kushites, Indians (notably the Magadhas, Gangaridais, Gandharas and Cholas), Early Imperial Chinese (notably the Qin and Han dynasties), Xiongnu Confederation, Ancient Romans, and Carthaginians. The fertile crescent of Mesopotamia was the center of several prehistoric conquests. Mesopotamia was conquered by the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians and Persians. Iranians were the first nation to introduce cavalry into their army. Egypt began growing as an ancient power, but eventually fell to the Libyans, Nubians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines and Arabs. The earliest recorded battle in India was the Battle of the Ten Kings. The Indian epics Mahabharata and Ramayana are centered on conflicts and refer to military formations, theories of warfare and esoteric weaponry. Chanakya's Arthashastra contains a detailed study on ancient warfare, including topics on espionage and war elephants. Alexander the Great invaded Northwestern India and defeated King Porus in the Battle of the Hydaspes River. The same region was soon re conquered by Chandragupta Maurya after defeating the Macedonians and Seleucids. He also went on to conquer the Nanda Empire and unify Northern India. Most of Southern Asia was unified under his grandson Ashoka the Great after the Kalinga War, though the empire collapsed not long after his reign. In China, the Shang dynasty and Zhou dynasty had risen and collapsed. This led to a Warring States period, in which several states continued to fight with each other over territory. Philosopher-strategists such as Confucius and Sun Tzu wrote various manuscripts on ancient warfare (as well as international diplomacy).

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military history

Chanakya's Arthashastra contains a detailed study on ancient warfare, including topics on espionage and war elephants. Alexander the Great invaded Northwestern India and defeated King Porus in the Battle of the Hydaspes River. The same region was soon re conquered by Chandragupta Maurya after defeating the Macedonians and Seleucids. He also went on to conquer the Nanda Empire and unify Northern India. Most of Southern Asia was unified under his grandson Ashoka the Great after the Kalinga War, though the empire collapsed not long after his reign. In China, the Shang dynasty and Zhou dynasty had risen and collapsed. This led to a Warring States period, in which several states continued to fight with each other over territory. Philosopher-strategists such as Confucius and Sun Tzu wrote various manuscripts on ancient warfare (as well as international diplomacy). The Warring States era philosopher Mozi (Micius) and his Mohist followers invented various siege weapons and siegecraft, including the Cloud Ladder (a four-wheeled, extendable ramp) to scale fortified walls during a siege of an enemy city. The warring states were first unified by Qin Shi Huang after a series of military conquests, creating the first empire in China. His empire was succeeded by the Han dynasty, which expanded into Central Asia, Northern China/Manchuria, Southern China, and present day Korea and Vietnam. The Han came into conflict with settled people such as the Wiman Joseon, and proto-Vietnamese Nanyue. They also came into conflict with the Xiongnu (Huns), Yuezhi, and other steppe civilizations. The Han defeated and drove the Xiongnus west, securing the city-states along the silk route that continued into the Parthian Empire. After the decline of central imperial authority, the Han dynasty collapsed into an era of civil war and continuous warfare during the Three Kingdoms period in the 3rd century AD. The Achaemenid Persian Empire was founded by Cyrus the Great after conquering the Median Empire, Neo-Babylonian Empire, Lydia and Asia Minor. His successor Cambyses went on to conquer the Egyptian Empire, much of Central Asia, and parts of Greece, India and Libya. The empire later fell to Alexander the Great after defeating Darius III. After being ruled by the Seleucid dynasty, the Persian Empire was subsequently ruled by the Parthian and Sassanid dynasties, which were the Roman Empire's greatest rivals during the Roman-Persian Wars. In Greece, several city-states rose to power, including Athens and Sparta. The Greeks successfully stopped two Persian invasions, the first at the Battle of Marathon, where the Persians were led by Darius the Great, and the second at the Battle of Salamis, a naval battle where the Greek ships were deployed by orders of Themistocles and the Persians were under Xerxes I, and the land engagement of the Battle of Plataea. The Peloponnesian War then erupted between the two Greek powers Athens and Sparta. Athens built a long wall to protect its inhabitants, but the wall helped to facilitate the spread of a plague that killed about 30,000 Athenians, including Pericles. After a disastrous campaign against Syracuse, the Athenian navy was decisively defeated by Lysander at the Battle of Aegospotami. The Macedonians, underneath Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great, invaded Persia and won several major victories, establishing Macedonia as a major power. However, following Alexander's death at an early age, the empire quickly fell apart. Meanwhile, Rome was gaining power, following a rebellion against the Etruscans. During the three Punic Wars, the Romans defeated the neighboring power of Carthage. The First Punic War centered on naval warfare. The Second Punic War started with Hannibal's invasion of Italy by crossing the Alps. He famously won the encirclement at the Battle of Cannae. However, after Scipio invaded Carthage, Hannibal was forced to follow and was defeated at the Battle of Zama, ending the role of Carthage as a power. After defeating Carthage the Romans went on to become the Mediterranean's dominant power, successfully campaigning in Greece, (Aemilius Paulus decisive victory over Macedonia at the Battle of Pydna), in the Middle East (Lucius Licinius Lucullus, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus), in Gaul (Gaius Julius Caesar) and defeating several Germanic tribes (Gaius Marius, Germanicus). While Roman armies suffered several major losses, their large population and ability (and will) to replace battlefield casualties, their training, organization, tactical and technical superiority enabled Rome to stay a predominant military force for several centuries, utilizing well trained and maneuverable armies to routinely overcome the much larger "tribal" armies of their foes (see Battles of Aquae Sextiae, Vercellae, Tigranocerta, Alesia). In 54 BC the Roman triumvir Marcus Licinius Crassus took the offensive against the Parthian Empire in the east. In a decisive battle at Carrhae Romans were defeated and the golden Aquilae (legionary battle standards) were taken as trophies to Ctesiphon. The battle was one of the worst defeats suffered by the Roman Republic in its entire history. While successfully dealing with foreign opponents, Rome experienced numerous civil wars, notably the power struggles of Roman generals such as Marius and Sulla during the end of the Republic. Caesar was also notable for his role in the civil war against the other member of the Triumvirate (Pompey) and against the Roman Senate. The successors of Caesar—Octavian and Mark Anthony—also fought a civil war with Caesar's assassins (Senators Brutus, Cassius, etc.). Octavian and Mark Anthony eventually fought another civil war between themselves to determine the sole ruler of Rome. Octavian emerged victorious and Rome was turned into an empire with a huge standing army of professional soldiers. By the time of Marcus Aurelius, the Romans had expanded to the Atlantic Ocean in the west and to Mesopotamia in the east and controlled Northern Africa and Central Europe up to the Black Sea. However, Aurelius marked the end of the Five Good Emperors, and Rome quickly fell into decline. The Huns, Goths, and other barbaric groups invaded Rome, which continued to suffer from inflation and other internal strifes. Despite the attempts of Diocletian, Constantine I, and Theodosius I, western Rome collapsed and was eventually conquered in 476. The Byzantine empire continued to prosper, however. Medieval warfare: When stirrups came into use some time during the Dark Ages militaries were forever changed. This invention coupled with technological, cultural, and social developments had forced a dramatic transformation in the character of warfare from antiquity, changing military tactics and the role of cavalry and artillery. Similar patterns of warfare existed in other parts of the world. In China around the 5th century armies moved from massed infantry to cavalry based forces, copying the steppe nomads. The Middle East and North Africa used similar, if often more advanced, technologies than Europe. In Japan, the Medieval warfare period is considered by many to have stretched into the 19th century. In Africa along the Sahel and Sudan states like the Kingdom of Sennar and Fulani Empire employed Medieval tactics and weapons well after they had been supplanted in Europe. In the Medieval period, feudalism was firmly implanted, and there existed many landlords in Europe. Landlords often owned castles to protect their territory. The Islamic Arab Empire began rapidly expanding throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, initially led by Rashidun Caliphate, and later under the Umayyads. While their attempts to invade Europe by way of the Balkans were defeated by Byzantium and Bulgaria, the Arabs expanded to the Iberian Peninsula in the west and the Indus Valley in the east. The Abassids then took over the Arab Empire, though the Umayyads remained in control of Islamic Spain. At the Battle of Tours, the Franks under Charles Martel stopped short a Muslim invasion. The Abassids defeated the Tang Chinese army at the Battle of Talas, but were later defeated by the Seljuk Turks and the Mongols centuries later, until the Arab Empire eventually came to an end after the Battle of Baghdad in 1258. In China, the Sui dynasty had risen and conquered the Chen dynasty of the south. They invaded Vietnam (northern Vietnam had been in Chinese control since the Han dynasty), fighting the troops of Champa, who had cavalry mounted on elephants. After decades of economic turmoil and a failed invasion of Korea, the Sui collapsed and was followed by the Tang dynasty, who fought with various Turkic groups, the Tibetans of Lhasa, the Tanguts, the Khitans, and collapsed due to political fragmentation of powerful regional military governors (jiedushi). The innovative Song dynasty followed next, inventing new weapons of war that employed the use of Greek Fire and gunpowder (see section below) against enemies such as the Jurchens. The Mongols under Genghis Khan, Ögedei Khan, Möngke Khan, and Kublai Khan conquered most of Eurasia. They took over China, Persia, Turkestan, and Russia.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military history

They invaded Vietnam (northern Vietnam had been in Chinese control since the Han dynasty), fighting the troops of Champa, who had cavalry mounted on elephants. After decades of economic turmoil and a failed invasion of Korea, the Sui collapsed and was followed by the Tang dynasty, who fought with various Turkic groups, the Tibetans of Lhasa, the Tanguts, the Khitans, and collapsed due to political fragmentation of powerful regional military governors (jiedushi). The innovative Song dynasty followed next, inventing new weapons of war that employed the use of Greek Fire and gunpowder (see section below) against enemies such as the Jurchens. The Mongols under Genghis Khan, Ögedei Khan, Möngke Khan, and Kublai Khan conquered most of Eurasia. They took over China, Persia, Turkestan, and Russia. After Kublai Khan took power and created the Yuan dynasty, the divisions of the empire ceased to cooperate with each other, and the Mongol Empire was only nominally united. In New Zealand, prior to European discovery, oral histories, legends and whakapapa include many stories of battles and wars. Māori warriors were held in high esteem. One group of Polynesians migrated to the Chatham Islands, where they developed the largely pacifist Moriori culture. Their pacifism left the Moriori unable to defend themselves when the islands were invaded by mainland Māori in the 1830s. They proceeded to massacre the Moriori and enslave the survivors. Warrior culture also developed in the isolated Hawaiian Islands. During the 1780s and 1790s the chiefs and alii were constantly fighting for power. After a series of battles the Hawaiian Islands were united for the first time under a single ruler who would become known as Kamehameha I. Gunpowder warfare: After gunpowder weapons were first developed in Song dynasty China (see also: Technology of the Song dynasty), the technology later spread west to the Ottoman Empire, from where it spread to the Safavid Empire of Persia and the Mughal Empire of India. The arquebus was later adopted by European armies during the Italian Wars of the early 16th century. This all brought an end to the dominance of armored cavalry on the battlefield. The simultaneous decline of the feudal system—and the absorption of the medieval city-states into larger states—allowed the creation of professional standing armies to replace the feudal levies and mercenaries that had been the standard military component of the Middle Ages. In Africa, Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi, was the first African commander to use gunpowder on the continent in the Ethiopian–Adal War, that lasted for fourteen years (1529–1543). The period spanning between the 1648 Peace of Westphalia and the 1789 French Revolution is also known as Kabinettskriege (Princes' warfare) as wars were mainly carried out by imperial or monarchics states, decided by cabinets and limited in scope and in their aims. They also involved quickly shifting alliances, and mainly used mercenaries. Over the course of the 18th–19th centuries all military arms and services underwent significant developments that included a more mobile field artillery, the transition from use of battalion infantry drill in close order to open order formations and the transfer of emphasis from the use of bayonets to the rifle that replaced the musket, and virtual replacement of all types of cavalry with the universal dragoons, or mounted infantry. Military Revolution: The Military Revolution is a conceptual schema for explaining the transformation of European military strategy, tactics and technology in the early modern period. The argument is that dramatic advances in technology, government finance, and public administration transformed and modernized European armies, tactics, and logistics. Since warfare was so central to the European state, the transformation had a major impact on modernizing government bureaucracies, taxation, and the national economy. The concept was introduced by Michael Roberts in the 1950s as he focused on Sweden 1560–1660. Roberts emphasized the introduction of muskets that could not be aimed at small targets, but could be very effective when fired in volleys by three ranks of infantry soldiers, with one firing while the other two ranks reloaded. All three ranks march forward to demolish the enemy. The infantry now had the firepower that had been reserved to the artillery, and had mobility that could rapidly advance in the battlefield, which the artillery lacked. The infantry thereby surpassed the artillery in tactical maneuvering on the battlefield. Roberts linked these advances with larger historical consequences, arguing that innovations in tactics, drill and doctrine by the Dutch and Swedes 1560–1660 led to a need for more and better trained troops and thus for permanent forces (standing armies). Armies grew much larger and more expensive. These changes in turn had major political consequences in the level of administrative support and the supply of money, men and provisions, producing new financial demands and the creation of new governmental institutions. "Thus, argued Roberts, the modern art of war made possible—and necessary—the creation of the modern state". In the 1990s the concept was modified and extended by Geoffrey Parker, who argued that developments in fortification and siege warfare caused the revolution. The concept of a military revolution based upon technology has given way to models based more on a slow evolution in which technology plays a minor role to organization, command and control, logistics and in general non-material improvements. The revolutionary nature of these changes was only visible after a long evolution that handed Europe a predominant place in warfare, a place that the industrial revolution would confirm. The concept of a military revolution in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries has received a mixed reception among historians. Noted military historians Michael Duffy and Jeremy Black have strongly criticised it as misleading, exaggerated and simplistic. Industrial warfare: As weapons—particularly small arms—became easier to use, countries began to abandon a complete reliance on professional soldiers in favor of conscription. Technological advances became increasingly important; while the armies of the previous period had usually had similar weapons, the industrial age saw encounters such as the Battle of Sadowa, in which possession of a more advanced technology played a decisive role in the outcome. Conscription was employed in industrial warfare to increase the number of military personnel that were available for combat. Conscription was notably used by Napoleon Bonaparte and the major parties during the two World Wars. Total war was used in industrial warfare, the objective being to prevent the opposing nation to engage in war. Napoleon was the innovator. William Tecumseh Sherman's "March to the Sea" and Philip Sheridan's burning of the Shenandoah Valley during the American Civil War were examples. On the largest scale the strategic bombing of enemy cities and industrial factories during World War II was total warfare. Modern warfare: Since the 1940s, preparation for a major war has been based on technological arms races involving all sorts of new weapons systems, such as nuclear and biological, as well as computerized control systems, and the opening of new venues, such as seen in the Space race involving the United States, the Soviet Union, and more recently, China. Modern war also saw the improvement of armored tank technology. While tanks were present in the First World War, and the Second World War, armored warfare technology came to a head with the start of the Cold War. Many of the technologies commonly seen on main battle tanks today, such as composite armor, high caliber cannons, and advanced targeting systems, would be developed during this time. A distinctive feature since 1945 is the absence of wars between major powers—indeed the near absence of any traditional wars between established countries. The major exceptions were the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, the Iran–Iraq War 1980–1988, and the Gulf War of 1990–91. Instead actual fighting has largely been a matter of civil wars and insurgencies. The most recent example of a war between two nation states would be the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. See also: Notes and references: Further reading: External links: International Bibliography of Military History of the International Commission of Military History – from Brill.nl H-WAR, daily discussion group for military historians – from Michigan State University Department of History, H-Net Humanities & Social Sciences Online Web Sources for Military History – from AmericanHistoryProjects.com Military History Encyclopedia on the Web

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military intelligence

Levels: Intelligence operations are carried out throughout the hierarchy of political and military activity. Strategic: Strategic intelligence is concerned with broad issues such as economics, political assessments, military capabilities and intentions of foreign nations (and, increasingly, non-state actors). Such intelligence may be scientific, technical, tactical, diplomatic or sociological, but these changes are analyzed in combination with known facts about the area in question, such as geography, demographics and industrial capacities. Strategic Intelligence is formally defined as "intelligence required for the formation of policy and military plans at national and international levels", and corresponds to the Strategic Level of Warfare, which is formally defined as "the level of warfare at which a nation, often as a member of a group of nations, determines national or multinational (alliance or coalition) strategic security objectives and guidance, then develops and uses national resources to achieve those objectives." Operational: Operational intelligence is focused on support or denial of intelligence at operational tiers. The operational tier is below the strategic level of leadership and refers to the design of practical manifestation. Formally defined as "Intelligence that is required for planning and conducting campaigns and major operations to accomplish strategic objectives within theaters or operational areas." It aligns with the Operational Level of Warfare, defined as "The level of warfare at which campaigns and major operations are planned, conducted, and sustained to achieve strategic objectives within theaters or other operational areas." The term operation intelligence is used within law enforcement to refer to intelligence that supports long-term investigations into multiple, similar targets. Operational intelligence, in the discipline of law enforcement intelligence, is concerned primarily with identifying, targeting, detecting and intervening in criminal activity. The use within law enforcement and law enforcement intelligence is not scaled to its use in general intelligence or military/naval intelligence, being more narrowed in scope. Tactical: Tactical intelligence is focused on support to operations at the tactical level and would be attached to the battlegroup. At the tactical level, briefings are delivered to patrols on current threats and collection priorities. These patrols are then debriefed to elicit information for analysis and communication through the reporting chain. Tactical Intelligence is formally defined as "intelligence required for the planning and conduct of tactical operations", and corresponds with the Tactical Level of Warfare, itself defined as "the level of warfare at which battles and engagements are planned and executed to achieve military objectives assigned to tactical units or task forces". Tasking: Intelligence should respond to the needs of leadership, based on the military objective and operational plans. The military objective provides a focus for the estimate process, from which a number of information requirements are derived. Information requirements may be related to terrain and impact on vehicle or personnel movement, disposition of hostile forces, sentiments of the local population and capabilities of the hostile order of battle. In response to the information requirements, analysts examine existing information, identifying gaps in the available knowledge. Where gaps in knowledge exist, the staff may be able to task collection assets to target the requirement. Analysis reports draw on all available sources of information, whether drawn from existing material or collected in response to the requirement. The analysis reports are used to inform the remaining planning staff, influencing planning and seeking to predict adversary intent. This process is described as Collection Co-ordination and Intelligence Requirement Management (CCIRM). Process: The process of intelligence has four phases: collection, analysis, processing and dissemination. In the United Kingdom these are known as direction, collection, processing and dissemination. In the U.S. military, Joint Publication 2-0 (JP 2-0) states: "The six categories of intelligence operations are: planning and direction; collection; processing and exploitation; analysis and production; dissemination and integration; and evaluation and feedback." Collection: Many of the most important facts are well known or may be gathered from public sources. This form of information collection is known as open-source intelligence. For example, the population, ethnic make-up and main industries of a region are extremely important to military commanders, and this information is usually public. It is however imperative that the collector of information understands that what is collected is "information", and does not become intelligence until after an analyst has evaluated and verified this information. Collection of read materials, composition of units or elements, disposition of strength, training, tactics, personalities (leaders) of these units and elements contribute to the overall intelligence value after careful analysis. The tonnage and basic weaponry of most capital ships and aircraft are also public, and their speeds and ranges can often be reasonably estimated by experts, often just from photographs. Ordinary facts like the lunar phase on particular days or the ballistic range of common military weapons are also very valuable to planning, and are habitually collected in an intelligence library. A great deal of useful intelligence can be gathered from photointerpretation of detailed high-altitude pictures of a country. Photointerpreters generally maintain catalogs of munitions factories, military bases and crate designs in order to interpret munition shipments and inventories. Most intelligence services maintain or support groups whose only purpose is to keep maps. Since maps also have valuable civilian uses, these agencies are often publicly associated or identified as other parts of the government. Some historic counterintelligence services, especially in Russia and China, have intentionally banned or placed disinformation in public maps; good intelligence can identify this disinformation. It is commonplace for the intelligence services of large countries to read every published journal of the nations in which it is interested, and the main newspapers and journals of every nation. This is a basic source of intelligence. It is also common for diplomatic and journalistic personnel to have a secondary goal of collecting military intelligence. For western democracies, it is extremely rare for journalists to be paid by an official intelligence service, but they may still patriotically pass on tidbits of information they gather as they carry on their legitimate business. Also, much public information in a nation may be unavailable from outside the country. This is why most intelligence services attach members to foreign service offices. Some industrialized nations also eavesdrop continuously on the entire radio spectrum, interpreting it in real time. This includes not only broadcasts of national and local radio and television, but also local military traffic, radar emissions and even microwaved telephone and telegraph traffic, including satellite traffic. The U.S. in particular is known to maintain satellites that can intercept cell-phone and pager traffic, usually referred to as the ECHELON system. Analysis of bulk traffic is normally performed by complex computer programs that parse natural language and phone numbers looking for threatening conversations and correspondents. In some extraordinary cases, undersea or land-based cables have been tapped as well. More exotic secret information, such as encryption keys, diplomatic message traffic, policy and orders of battle are usually restricted to analysts on a need-to-know basis in order to protect the sources and methods from foreign traffic analysis. Analysis: Analysis consists of assessment of an adversary's capabilities and vulnerabilities. In a real sense, these are threats and opportunities. Analysts generally look for the least defended or most fragile resource that is necessary for important military capabilities. These are then flagged as critical vulnerabilities. For example, in modern mechanized warfare, the logistics chain for a military unit's fuel supply is often the most vulnerable part of a nation's order of battle. Human intelligence, gathered by spies, is usually carefully tested against unrelated sources. It is notoriously prone to inaccuracy. In some cases, sources will just make up imaginative stories for pay, or they may try to settle grudges by identifying personal enemies as enemies of the state that is paying for the intelligence. However, human intelligence is often the only form of intelligence that provides information about an opponent's intentions and rationales, and it is therefore often uniquely valuable to successful negotiation of diplomatic solutions. In some intelligence organizations, analysis follows a procedure. First, general media and sources are screened to locate items or groups of interest, and then their location, capabilities, inputs and environment are systematically assessed for vulnerabilities using a continuously-updated list of typical vulnerabilities. Filing: Critical vulnerabilities are then indexed in a way that makes them easily available to advisors and line intelligence personnel who package this information for policy-makers and war-fighters. Vulnerabilities are usually indexed by the nation and military unit with a list of possible attack methods. Critical threats are usually maintained in a prioritized file, with important enemy capabilities analyzed on a schedule set by an estimate of the enemy's preparation time. For example, nuclear threats between the USSR and the U.S. were analyzed in real time by continuously on-duty staffs. In contrast, analysis of tank or army deployments are usually triggered by accumulations of fuel and munitions, which are monitored every few days. In some cases, automated analysis is performed in real time on automated data traffic. Packaging threats and vulnerabilities for decision-makers is a crucial part of military intelligence. A good intelligence officer will stay very close to the policy-maker or war fighter to anticipate their information requirements and tailor the information needed. A good intelligence officer will also ask a fairly large number of questions in order to help anticipate needs. For an important policy-maker, the intelligence officer will have a staff to which research projects can be assigned. Developing a plan of attack is not the responsibility of intelligence, though it helps an analyst to know the capabilities of common types of military units. Generally, policy-makers are presented with a list of threats and opportunities. They approve some basic action, and then professional military personnel plan the detailed act and carry it out. Once hostilities begin, target selection often moves into the upper end of the military chain of command. Once ready stocks of weapons and fuel are depleted, logistic concerns are often exported to civilian policy-makers. Dissemination: The processed intelligence information is disseminated through database systems, intel bulletins and briefings to the different decision-makers.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military intelligence

A good intelligence officer will also ask a fairly large number of questions in order to help anticipate needs. For an important policy-maker, the intelligence officer will have a staff to which research projects can be assigned. Developing a plan of attack is not the responsibility of intelligence, though it helps an analyst to know the capabilities of common types of military units. Generally, policy-makers are presented with a list of threats and opportunities. They approve some basic action, and then professional military personnel plan the detailed act and carry it out. Once hostilities begin, target selection often moves into the upper end of the military chain of command. Once ready stocks of weapons and fuel are depleted, logistic concerns are often exported to civilian policy-makers. Dissemination: The processed intelligence information is disseminated through database systems, intel bulletins and briefings to the different decision-makers. The bulletins may also include consequently resulting information requirements and thus conclude the intelligence cycle. Military intelligence organisations: Defence Intelligence Organisation (Australia) Canadian Forces Intelligence Command (Canada) Intelligence Branch (Canadian Forces) Military Intelligence (Czech Republic) Direction du Renseignement Militaire (France) Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND – German Federal Intelligence Service) and Militärischer Abschirmdienst (MAD- German Military Counter-Intelligence) Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (Bangladesh) Military Intelligence and Reconnaissance (Egypt) (Egypt) Strategic Intelligence Agency (Indonesia) Defence Intelligence Agency (India) Directorate of Military Intelligence Directorate of Naval Intelligence Directorate of Air Intelligence Directorate of Military Intelligence (Ireland) Aman (Israel) Centro Intelligence Interforze (Italy) Malaysian Defence Intelligence Organisation (Malaysia) Defence Intelligence Agency (Nigeria) Inter-Services Intelligence and Military Intelligence of Pakistan Centro de Informações e Segurança Militares (CISMIL – Portugal) Glavnoye Razvedyvatel'noye Upravleniye (GRU – Russian Military Intelligence) Military Intelligence Agency (VOA – Serbia) Defence Intelligence and the Intelligence Corps (UK) United States Intelligence Community Defense Intelligence Agency G-2, US Army unit Military Intelligence Corps Defence Intelligence Division of the South African National Defence Force (South Africa) See also: Intelligence gathering disciplines List of intelligence gathering disciplines References: Further reading: N. J. E. Austin and N. B. Rankov, Exploratio: Military and Political Intelligence in the Roman World From the Second Punic War to the Battle of Adrianople. London: Routledge, 1995. Julius Caesar, The Civil War. Translated by Jane F. Mitchell. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1967. Cassius Dio, Dio's Roman History. Translated by Earnest Cary. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1916. Francis Dvornik, Origins of Intelligence Services. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1974. Terrance Finnegan, "The Origins of Modern Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance: Military Intelligence at the Front, 1914–18", Studies in Intelligence 53#4 (2009) pp. 25–40. J. F. C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World, Vol. 1: From the Earliest Times to the Battle of Lepanto. New York: Da Capo Press, 1987. Richard A. Gabriel and Karen S. Metz, From Sumer to Rome; The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies. New York: Greenwood Press, 1991. John Keegan, Intelligence in War. New York: Knopf, 2003. Charles H. Harris & Louis R. Sadler. The Border and the Revolution: Clandestine Activities of the Mexican Revolution 1910–1920. HighLonesome Books, 1988. Ishmael Jones, The Human Factor: Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture, New York: Encounter Books, 2010 (ISBN 978-1594032233). Henry Landau, The Enemy Within: The Inside Story of German Sabotage in America. G. P. Putnam Sons, 1937. Sidney F. Mashbir. I Was An American Spy. Vantage, 1953. Nathan Miller. Spying for America: The Hidden History of U.S. Intelligence. Dell Publishing, 1989. Ian Sayer & Douglas Botting. America's Secret Army, The Untold Story of the Counter Intelligence Corps. Franklin Watts Publishers, 1989. Barbara W. Tuchman, The Zimmermann Telegram. Ballantine Books, 1958. "Coast Guard Intelligence Looking For a Few Good Men and Women." Commandant's Bulletin (Jun 10 1983), p. 34. "Coast Guard Investigative Service." Coast Guard (Dec 1996), pp. 24–25. The Coast Guard at War: Volume XII: Intelligence. Washington, DC: Historical Section, Public Information Division, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, January 1, 1949. Hinsley, Francis H. "British Intelligence in the Second World War: Its Influence on Strategy and Operations". Cambridge University Press, 1990. Ruiz, Victor H. (2010). "A Knowledge Taxonomy for Army Intelligence Training: An Assessment of the Military Intelligence Basic Officer Leaders Course Using Lundvall's Knowledge Taxonomy". Applied Research Projects, Texas State University, Paper 331. Alfred Rolington. Strategic Intelligence for the 21st Century: The Mosaic Method. Oxford University Press, 2013. Creating Intelligence, Neil Garra. External links: Office of the Director of National Intelligence Intelligence Resource Program of the Federation of American Scientists Reference Joint Publication 2-0 S2 Creating Intelligence

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military justice

Canada: All Commands of the Canadian Forces (CF) (that is, Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Air Force, Canadian Joint Operations Command, and Canadian Special Operations Forces Command) are primarily governed by the National Defence Act (NDA). Section 12 of the NDA§ authorizes the governor in council's creation of the Queen's Regulations and Orders (QR&Os). The QR&Os are subordinate legislation having the force of law. Since the principle of delegatus non-potest delegare has not achieved rigid standing in Canada, the QR&Os authorize other military officials to generate orders having similar, but not equal, status. These instruments can be found in the Canadian Forces Administrative Orders and Defence Administrative Orders and Directives; they are used as direction for authorities within the CF to administer the day-to-day considerations of the Forces. For example, officer cadets attending military college are organized and subject to regulations more appropriate for their academic success than the enforcement of discipline, as might be expected of fully trained members. Volume IV, Appendix 6.1 of The Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Military Colleges (QR Canmilcols) applies. A judge advocate general (JAG) has headed the Canadian military legal branch since before the First World War. The branch interprets the Canadian Forces' own internal rules and in the Code of Service Discipline, and also international and humanitarian laws and codes of war, such as the Geneva Conventions. In Canadian practice, armed combat is a strictly regulated environment and legal officers are a crucial part of the planning that goes into operational decisions. The Military Law Centre on the grounds of Royal Military College of Canada, staffed with military lawyers, oversees the education of officers and troops in legal matters, trains military lawyers and advises Ottawa on matters of policy and doctrine. Legal education is integrated into the regular training that CF members undergo. Finland: Jurisdiction: The Finnish military law concerns the members of the Finnish Defence Forces and the Finnish Border Guard. The military jurisdiction encompasses all military persons: conscripts, students training for a paid military position, females serving voluntarily and paid military personnel. However, military chaplains are outside the criminal military jurisdiction.: § 4  Reservists belong to the military jurisdiction when activated voluntarily or involuntarily. The military jurisdiction starts from the moment when a person reports to duty or was liable to report to duty and lasts to the moment when the person has been discharged from service and, in case of conscripts and involuntarily activated reservists, has also left the military area. During wartime, also civilians serving in the Defence Forces or in civilian institutions that have been put under the direction of Defence Forces are under military jurisdiction.: §§1–2 : §§ 45:27–28  Enemy prisoners of war fall under Finnish military jurisdiction during their imprisonment.: 28 Military crimes: As in Germany, persons under military jurisdiction are under the usual civilian criminal law. The military criminal law, the 45th Chapter of the penal code, encompasses only the crimes which only military persons can commit. The most important of these are various types of "service crime" (Finnish: palvelusrikos, Swedish: tjänstgöringsbrott) which encompasses all voluntary and negligent disobedience of orders and regulations, "guard crime" (Finnish: vartiorikos, Swedish: vakttjänstbrott), encompassing any misdeed during guarding duty, absence without leave (Finnish: luvaton poissaolo, Swedish: olovlig frånvaro), desertion (Finnish: sotakarkuruus, Swedish: överlöpning), diverse forms of disobedience against superiors, misuses of a position as superior and behaviour unsuitable for military person (Finnish: sotilaan sopimaton käyttäytyminen, Swedish: olämpligt uppträdande av krigsman). Other crimes are subject to usual civilian law.: Ch. 45  The military has a jurisdiction to investigate all military crimes proper, and also a number of other crimes that have been specifically listed as belonging to the military jurisdiction.: § 1  These include e.g. various types of murder, assault, theft, fraud, forgery, computer hacking and illegal divulging of classified information. However, they are only under military jurisdiction if the crime has been committed against another military person or against the Defence Forces.: § 2  Unlike other crimes, the military crimes have separate sentence ranges for peace and wartime. During wartime, the crimes carry considerably larger sentence ranges and, if the crime causes the danger to the military unit, the sentence range is even harsher. For example, desertion carries, in the peacetime, a sentence of disciplinary punishment or up to one year in prison. During wartime, it carries a mandatory prison sentence of not more than four years, and, if the crime caused a particularly immediate danger to the unit, a mandatory minimum of one year, with a maximum sentence of ten years.: §§45:10, 20, 23  When the military has jurisdiction over an ordinary crime, and the crime carries fine as a punishment, a disciplinary punishment may be given instead of fine both in summary proceedings and in the courts of law.: §4 Investigation and summary discipline: When the crime falls under military jurisdiction, it is usually investigated by the serviceman's own unit. During such investigation, the serviceman's superior and the company commander have the power to detain the suspect. The battalion commander and military police officers have also the right to arrest the suspect and to conduct searches inside a military area.: Ch. 4  When the company commander or his superior feels that the crime is non-trivial and requires professional investigation, they may submit the issue to the Defence Command for investigation. The Defence Command has, in addition to the power of arrest, the power to use almost all other measures that are available to the Finnish police. If the Defence Command requires the use of the most invasive investigative measures (e.g. wiretaps, use of deep cover agents or computer intrusion) they may either request the police to conduct the measure or hand over the case to the police, as agreed between the investigator and the competent policeman. If the police considers it necessary, they may always take the case over, however.: §§35–39  In the Border Guard, the Border Guard headquarters has the same internal law enforcement authority as the Defence Command in the Defence Forces, in addition to the regular law enforcement powers of the Border Guard. When the investigation is ready, the case is brought to the company commander or sergeant major or for his superior for consideration. After hearing the suspect, the disposing superior either frees the suspect from suspicion or gives an appropriate punishment within the range allowed to him.: §§46, 51  The range is: §§3, 12  Company sergeant major: a private warning, up to three shifts of extra duty (only to conscripts and involuntarily activated reservists) Company commander: a private warning, up to five shifts of extra duty, up to 10 days of confinement to the garrison, a public letter of reprimand (Finnish: varoitus, Swedish: varning) Battalion commander, all of above, and up to fifteen days of confinement to garrison Brigade commander and his superiors: all of above and up to 30 disciplinary fines, one disciplinary fine being one fifth of the individual's daily gross income, or for conscripts, at least conscript's daily allowance. During peacetime, professional soldiers (with the exception of certain soldiers deployed to international missions) cannot be given other disciplinary punishment than a public letter of reprimand or a fine.: §9  If the superior does not feel that his powers allow him to give sufficient punishment, he will transfer the matter to the next higher superior. When the brigade commander determines that he cannot give sufficient punishment, he will transfer the matter to the public prosecutor who will commence prosecution in a civilian court.: § 48  If the serviceman feels that the punishment was unjust, he can appeal to the brigade commander. The brigade commander's decision can be appealed to the district court within seven days. However, the appeals will not prevent the execution of the punishment.: Ch. 6 and §69 Trial and appeals: The military crimes that go to court are handled by civilian courts that have military members. The district court has a learned civilian judge and two military members. One of them is an officer and the other a warrant officer, an NCO or a private. The court of appeals, that acts as the first instance for the prosecution of officers with at least major's rank, will have a military member who has at least a major's rank. The Supreme Court of Finland has two officers with at least colonel's rank as members when handling military crimes.: Ch. 3 and §3  These members are not named for a specific case but serve for two-year terms. The military members of the district court are selected by the court of appeals on the motion of the Commander of the Finnish Army. The military members of the Courts of Appeals are selected by the Ministry of Justice on motion of the Ministry of Defence. The military members of the Supreme Court are selected by the President of Finland.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military justice

The district court has a learned civilian judge and two military members. One of them is an officer and the other a warrant officer, an NCO or a private. The court of appeals, that acts as the first instance for the prosecution of officers with at least major's rank, will have a military member who has at least a major's rank. The Supreme Court of Finland has two officers with at least colonel's rank as members when handling military crimes.: Ch. 3 and §3  These members are not named for a specific case but serve for two-year terms. The military members of the district court are selected by the court of appeals on the motion of the Commander of the Finnish Army. The military members of the Courts of Appeals are selected by the Ministry of Justice on motion of the Ministry of Defence. The military members of the Supreme Court are selected by the President of Finland.: §11  The sentences of the courts for military crimes are served in civilian prisons. An exception is formed by the disciplinary arrest, which may be sentenced for up to 30 days and is served in the detention facilities of the convict's garrison. When the military person holds a permanent or temporary paid position as a state military servant (Finnish: sotilasvirkamies, Swedish: militärtjänsteman), as all officers and NCOs in regular active service do, they will be sentenced to dismissal (Finnish: viraltapano, Swedish: avsättning) in addition to other punishments, if they are convicted of a military or a civilian crime for more than two years in prison and there are no special grounds for leniency. If the sentence is a life sentence, dismissal is mandatory. The court may also sentence dismissal with a shorter prison sentence if the crime shows that the person is unsuitable for state employment.: §2:10  If the military person is no longer in service, the summary disciplinary procedure cannot be used and the military has no longer any law enforcement power over the issue. In such cases, the former service member is investigated by the civilian police but the case is handled by a court with military members. In sentencing, disciplinary punishments cannot be used. Instead if a disciplinary punishment, an ordinary day-fine is sentenced.: §6:1  Typically, this is the case when a reservist is absent from an obligatory refresher exercise or a conscript is, after the commission of crime, declared unfit for duty for medical or security reasons. Administrative punishment: In addition to judicial dismissal, the Defence Forces and the Border Guard have the option of administratively ending the military person's service if the person is in a paid position. This can happen even if no criminal charges are pressed. In the Defence Forces, the professional serviceman can also be administratively suspended for a period of one to six months. Similarly to state military servants, persons serving in a deployed force on an international mission may be administratively dismissed by the commander of the Finnish contingent. A conscript or a reservist cannot be dismissed but their service can be suspended by the brigade commander if they are suspected of having committed a crime which shows that they may endanger the safety of others. Following this, the person may be declared permanently unfit for duty by the Defence Forces regional office for safety and security reasons. As an exception to the principle that the military jurisdiction concerns only military persons, the penal code provides for the loss of military rank. Any person who is sentenced to prison for at least two years or to prison for any length of time for a crime of treasonous nature (specifically, crimes in chapters 11 and 12 of the Penal Code, e.g. espionage, high treason and related crimes), shall be sentenced to lose their military rank also. Thus, not only active military persons but also retired personnel, reservists and persons who are too old to belong to reserve may lose their military ranks for crimes of civilian nature.: §2:14a Statistics: Military crimes are relatively common in Finland. Partly this is due to the fact that the bar of criminality has been set consciously low. The crime of absence without leave is committed by a soldier who is even a minute late, and a slightest wilful or negligent disregard for a standing order or a regulation fulfils the indicia of the "service crime". The legislator has purposefully given the military superiors the legal tools by which to maintain discipline by punishing even the slight appearances of bad conduct if they feel it necessary. On the other hand, handing out unofficial punishments is discouraged in the extreme. The number of military crimes is yearly somewhat above 4,000. An absolute majority of these are handled by summary measures, i.e. by a punishments given by the military superiors. Only some 250 military crimes in a year end up for handling in district courts.: 92  The number of appeals is vanishingly small. In year 2014, courts of appeals handled only a total of 5 military criminal cases.: 502 Germany: Members of any branch of the Bundeswehr, the German armed forces, are subject to the ordinary civil jurisdiction and unless otherwise stated all civil laws apply to soldiers as well. The German constitution allows the federal government in art. 96 II to create military courts under special circumstances: in times of war, outside Germany or on a German vessel, acting under a legal judge and only for members of the armed forces. In fact, no such laws have been enacted so far. Instead, suspects of crimes committed abroad are subject to the district attorney of the city of Potsdam. The reason is that the operational headquarters (Einsatzführungskommando) is located there. Nonetheless, there exist numerous acts that only concern soldiers describing their special status, their rights and duties. The military penal code (Wehrstrafgesetz) applies to soldiers by extending the civil penal code (Strafgesetzbuch) to crimes that can be only committed on military duty: General offenses (such as desertion, illegal use of weapons and more) and offenses that interfere with the military hierarchy (such as mutiny or abuse). Law enforcing inside any branch is done by the military police, the Feldjäger. When investigating, working for the attorney is equivalent to any German police in civil issues. In cases of both groups involved (on German terrain), regular and military police cooperate. In emergencies, the regular police is authorized to maintain order until the military police has arrived. Soldiers that violate military regulations may also receive penalties in form of Non-judicial punishment or in severe cases judicial punishments by a special type of court. These procedures are defined by the military discipline code (Wehrdisziplinarordnung, WDO). The WDO describes how to proceed on offenses that are not (yet) covered by the military penal code but clearly against a military regulation. The head of the unit as immediate superior who acts as primary disciplinary master has the exclusive right to choose: non-judicial punishment (such as fines, curfews, arrests up to seven days), forwarding the decision to the next superior officer of the unit (arrest then can be extended up to 21 days) or calling the military service court (Truppendienstgericht) which has the power for further punishment (like degradation and shortening the salary up to five years). The judge of such a court is a civil one, two military officers are attending every case and act as consultants to the judge. In Germany, there are no federal or military prisons. If a soldier is sentenced to jail for up to six months, the punishment is executed by the soldier's barracks administration. He will remain in arrest for the same time but continue serving in his unit on duty times unless the court has imposed further limits. Otherwise soldiers will be detained in civil state prisons. In the case of a soldier being sentenced to jail for one year or more (six months or more in case of bribery) he will be discharged from the armed forces. India: India has its own Army Act, Navy Act and Air Force Act. These laws define the statutory provisions as applicable to men and women in uniform. All these three Acts are available on search from the official website. There are certain para military forces in India too who have laws akin to the ones applicable to defence services. This includes the Border Security Force Act, Coast Guard Act, Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Act and the Assam Rifles Act. All such Acts draw their inspiration from the Army Act. The military courts in India are coming under extreme stress with the establishment of Armed Forces Tribunal in 2007. There is increasing voice in the country for the reform on the lines other liberal democracies are seeing in their military justice system. United Kingdom: The United Kingdom's arrangements for justice in the armed forces dates back many centuries to the Articles of War. In the late 19th Century this was added to the annual Army Act and embodied in the Naval Discipline Act. The Air Force Act was added in 1918. In 1966 a process of harmonisation started with the introduction of a quinquennial Armed Forces Act. The Armed Forces Act 2006 replaces the three separate service discipline acts and earlier Armed Forces Acts as the system of law under which the Armed Forces operate. In the previous decade the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) had considerable impact on the administration of military justice, particularly the need for the independence of the courts martial system. Nevertheless, the underlying premise of the service justice system is that discipline is a matter for commanders.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military justice

There is increasing voice in the country for the reform on the lines other liberal democracies are seeing in their military justice system. United Kingdom: The United Kingdom's arrangements for justice in the armed forces dates back many centuries to the Articles of War. In the late 19th Century this was added to the annual Army Act and embodied in the Naval Discipline Act. The Air Force Act was added in 1918. In 1966 a process of harmonisation started with the introduction of a quinquennial Armed Forces Act. The Armed Forces Act 2006 replaces the three separate service discipline acts and earlier Armed Forces Acts as the system of law under which the Armed Forces operate. In the previous decade the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) had considerable impact on the administration of military justice, particularly the need for the independence of the courts martial system. Nevertheless, the underlying premise of the service justice system is that discipline is a matter for commanders. The Armed Forces Act 2006 completed the harmonisation of service law, and took full effect on 1 November 2009. Guidance about its application and related matters are provided in the Manual of Service Law. One motivating factor behind the changes in the legislation combining discipline acts across the armed forces is the trend towards tri-service operations and defence organisations. It deals with military offences, civil offences committed in some circumstances, offences by civilians associated with the armed forces or with the armed forces overseas (including family members), authority of Commanding Officer to deal with offences summarily, the Court Martial, the Service Civilian Court, custody and appeals. The Act also creates the post of the Director of Service Prosecutions. Summary dealing by a Commanding Officer (CO) is the central feature, this is acceptable within the ECHR because an accused always has the right to elect trial by the Court Martial. Most cases are dealt with summarily. Typically a CO is a Lieutenant Colonel or equivalent (NATO grade OF-4), but a CO may delegate some powers of summary dealing to a subordinate. The superior officer of a CO, a Higher Authority, may vary a CO's powers of summary dealing. An implication is that every person subject to service law must have a CO, and a CO must have a Higher Authority. The military judicial system is headed by the Judge Advocate General who is a civilian and part of the Ministry of Justice. Administrative procedures enable a service man or woman to be discharged for unsatisfactory behaviour in a process similar to that in the private sector. They also allow a superior of any rank to award up to three extra duties or similar to a subordinate for minor infractions. Since being introduced this has significantly reduced the number of cases dealt with summarily. United States: The United States Constitution authorized the creation of a system of military justice. Article I, Section 8 permits the U.S. Congress to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." Congress issued these rules first in 1806 as the Articles of War. Military justice during the American Civil War was governed by the 1863 Lieber Code. The Articles of War were superseded in 1951 by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The UCMJ is federal law, found in Title 10 United States Code Chapter 47, and implemented by the Manual for Courts-Martial, an executive order issued by the President of the United States in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. Court-martial convictions in the United States may be appealed through military courts of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), a federal appellate court consisting of five civilian judges appointed by the President of the United States. CAAF decisions are subject to direct review by the Supreme Court of the United States. The offenses covered by the UCMJ include those encompassed by "high crimes and misdemeanors" which covers officials generally, and includes perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order. It also includes ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for civilians, on the grounds that more is expected of military personnel by their oaths of office. Many of the terms used date back to the era during which the code was written. See also: Court-martial Laws of war Martial law References: Further reading: Bessner, Daniel; Lorber, Eric (October 2012). "Toward a Theory of Civil-Military Punishment". Armed Forces & Society. 38 (4): 649–668. doi:10.1177/0095327X12437685. S2CID 147068799. Madsen, Chris (2008). Military Law and Operations. Aurora, Ontario: Canada Law Book. Archived from the original on 11 February 2009. Retrieved 13 March 2009. Loose-leaf publication updated 1–2 times per year. Schlueter, David A. (2008). Military Justice: Practice and Procedure (7th ed.). External links: Rule of Law in Armed Conflicts Project

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military logistics

Etymology and definition: The word "logistics" is derived from the Greek adjective logistikos meaning "skilled in calculating", and its corresponding Latin word logisticus. In turn this comes from the Greek logos, which refers to the principles of thought and action. Another Latin root, log-, gave rise around 1380 to logio, meaning to lodge or dwell, and became the French verb loger, meaning "to lodge". Around 1670, the French King Louis XIV created the position of Maréchal des logis, an officer responsible for planning marches, establishing camp sites, and regulating transport and supply. The term logistique soon came to refer to his duties. It was in this sense that Antoine-Henri Jomini referred to the term in his Summary of the Art of War (1838). In the English translation, the word became "logistics". In 1888, Charles C. Rogers created a course on naval logistics at the Naval War College. In Farrow's Military Encyclopedia (1895), Edward S. Farrow, and instructor in tactics at West Point provided this definition:Bardin considers the application of this word by some writers as more ambitious than accurate. It is derived from Latin logista, the administrator or intendant of the Roman armies. It is properly that branch of the military art embracing all the details for moving and supplying armies. It includes the operations of the ordnance, quartermaster's, subsistence, medical, and pay departments. It also embraces the preparation and regulation of magazines, for opening a campaign, and all orders of march and other orders from the general-in-chief relative to moving and supplying armies. The term became popularised during the Second World War. In Logistics in World War II: Final Report of the Army Service Forces, Lieutenant General LeRoy Lutes, the commanding general of the Army Service Forces, gave the term a more expansive definition: The word "logistics" has been given many different shades of meaning. A common definition is: "That branch of military art which embraces the details of the transport, quartering, and supply of troops in military operations." As the word is used in the following pages, its meaning is even broader. It embraces all military activities not included in the terms "strategy" and "tactics." In this sense, logistics includes procurement, storage, and distribution of equipment and supplies; transport of troops and cargo by land, sea, and air; construction and maintenance of facilities; communication by wire, radio, and the mails; care of the sick and wounded; and the induction, classification, assignment, welfare and separation of personnel. NATO uses a more restrictive definition:The science of planning and carrying out the movement and maintenance of forces. In its most comprehensive sense, the aspects of military operations which deal with: In the 1960s, the term "logistics" began to be used in the business world, where it means physical distribution and supply chain management. This is more restricted than the military definition. Logistics is an enabler of military operations, not an end in itself. Poor logistics can result in defeat, but even the best logistics cannot guarantee victory. Conversely, the best possible logistics is not always required: fit for purpose can suffice. Principles: Historian James A. Huston proposed sixteen principles of military logistics: Equivalence: Strategy, tactics and logistics are inseparable and interdependent facets of military art and science. Material precedence: Mobilisation of materiel should precede that of personnel, and the provision of logistical units that of combat units. Forward impetus: The impetus of supply should be from the rear, and combat unit commanders should be spared having to deal with logistical details while still being in control of their logistics. Mobility: Logistics should facilitate the rapid movement of both combat and logistical units in support of operations. Dispersion: Multiple sources of supply and lines of communications reduce the enemy interference and congestion of transportation infrastructure. Economy: Logistical resources are limited, so they must be deployed so as to make the best use of them. Feasibility: Logistical capabilities are subject to external constraints. Flexibility: Strategic and operational plans and priorities change and logistical support must change with them. Relativity: Logistics is relative to time and space. Continuity: Fundamental changes should not be required to meet an emergency. Timeliness Logistical tasks must be accomplished so as to take full advantage of opportunities. Responsibility: Someone must be responsible for logistical performance and outcomes. Unity of command: Logistics is a function of command and a single authority should be responsible for logistics. Information: Accurate and timely information is required for effective logistical planning and support. Quality: Logistics is facilitated by strict quality standards. Simplicity: Simple solutions are more effective and manageable. The United States Joint Chiefs of Staff reduced the number of principles to just seven: Responsiveness: Providing the required support when and where it is needed. Simplicity: fosters unity and efficiency in planning and execution, and reduces the fog of war and the "friction" caused by combat. Flexibility: the ability to improvise and adapt to changing situations and requirements. Economy: using the minimum amount of resources required to bring about an objective. Attainability: the point at which sufficient supplies, support and distribution capabilities exist to initiate operations at an acceptable level of risk. Sustainability: the ability to maintain the necessary level and duration of logistics support to achieve objectives. Survivability: the capacity to prevail in spite of adverse impacts. Supply options: There are three basic options for the supply of an army in the field, which can be employed individually or in combination. Obtain supplies in the field: The most basic requirements of an army were food and water. Foraging involved gathering food and fodder for animals in the field. The availability of these tends to be seasonal, with greater abundance around harvest time in agricultural regions. There is also a dependence on geography, for in desert campaigns there may not be food, water or fodder available locally. Looting was a means of obtaining supplies in the field. It is possible to capture supplies from the enemy or enemy population. An alternative is purchasing, whereby an army takes cash and buys its supplies in the field. Cash can also be obtained in the field through local taxation, backed by the threat of violence. The major drawback of using local sources of supply is that they can be exhausted if an army remains in one place for too long, so a force dependent on local supply needs to keep moving. The widespread use of resources in the field gives rise to counter-logistics, whereby they are denied to the enemy through devastation of the land and removal or destruction of resources. Pre-emptive purchasing can be used as a form of economic warfare. A besieging force can attempt to starve out a garrison or tempt it to sally through devastation of the surrounding area rather than undertake the more costly operation of assaulting and destroying it, but if it is dependent on local supply then the besieger who might be starved out through their exhaustion. Carry supplies with the army: A second method is to bring along what is needed, whether by ships, pack animals, wagons or carried on the backs of the soldiers themselves. Since ancient times, troops had carried rations and personal equipment such as weapons, armour, cooking gear and bedrolls. Animals could be driven to accompany the army and consumed for meat. Roads facilitate the movement of wheeled vehicles, and travel by river or sea permits the carriage of large volumes of supplies. This allowed the army some measure of self-sufficiency, and until the development of faster firing weapons in the 19th century most of the ammunition a soldier needed for an entire campaign could be carried on their person or in wagons accompanying the troops. However, this method led to an extensive baggage train which could slow the army's advance. Ship supplies from the rear: Obtaining supplies in the field and carrying supplies with the army remained the primary means of supply until the 19th century, but even in the 17th century the much larger armies of the period were highly dependent on food supplies being gathered in magazines and shipped to the front. Starting with the Industrial Revolution, new technological, technical and administrative advances permitted supplies to be transported at speeds and over distances never before possible. At the same time, increased demands for ammunition, and the heavier weight of shells and bombs made it more difficult for armies to carry their requirements, and they soon became dependent on regular replenishment of ammunition from depots. At the same time, mechanisation, with motor vehicles replacing animals, created a demand for fuel and spare parts, neither of which could be obtained locally. This led to a "logistical revolution" which began in the 20th century and drastically improved the capabilities of modern armies while making them highly dependent on this method. History: The history of military logistics goes back to Neolithic times. The most basic requirements of an army were food and water. Early armies were equipped with weapons used for hunting like spears, knives, axes and bows and arrows, and rarely exceeded 20,000 men due to the practical difficulty of supplying a large number of soldiers. Large armies began to appear in the Iron Age. Animals such as horses, oxen, camels and elephants were used as beasts of burden to carry supplies. Food, water and fodder for the animals could usually be found or purchased in the field. The Roman Empire and Maurya Empire in India built networks of roads, but it was far less expensive to transport a ton of grain from Egypt to Rome by sea than 80 kilometres (50 mi) by road.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military logistics

History: The history of military logistics goes back to Neolithic times. The most basic requirements of an army were food and water. Early armies were equipped with weapons used for hunting like spears, knives, axes and bows and arrows, and rarely exceeded 20,000 men due to the practical difficulty of supplying a large number of soldiers. Large armies began to appear in the Iron Age. Animals such as horses, oxen, camels and elephants were used as beasts of burden to carry supplies. Food, water and fodder for the animals could usually be found or purchased in the field. The Roman Empire and Maurya Empire in India built networks of roads, but it was far less expensive to transport a ton of grain from Egypt to Rome by sea than 80 kilometres (50 mi) by road. After the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century there was the shift from a centrally organised army to a combination of military forces made up of local troops. Feudalism was a distributed military logistics system where magnates of the households drew upon their own resources for men and equipment. When operating in enemy territory an army was forced to plunder the local countryside for supplies, which allowed war to be conducted at the enemy's expense. However, with the increase in army sizes from the late sixteenth century onward, this reliance on pillage and plunder became problematic, as decisions regarding where and when an army could move or fight became based not on strategic objectives but on whether a given area was capable of supporting the soldiers' needs. Sieges in particular were affected by this, both for an army attempting to lay siege to a town and one coming to its relief. Unless a commander was able to arrange a form of regular resupply, a fortress or town with a devastated countryside could become immune to either operation. Napoleon made logistics a major part of his strategy. He dispersed his corps along a broad front to maximise the area from which supplies could be drawn. Each day forage parties brought in supplies. This differed from earlier operations living off the land in the size of the forces involved, and because the primary motivation was the emperor's desire for mobility. Ammunition could not as a rule be obtained locally, but it was still possible to carry sufficient ammunition for an entire campaign. The nineteenth century witnessed technological developments that facilitated immense improvements to the storage, handling and transportation of supplies which made it easier to support and army from the rear. Canning simplified storage and distribution of foods, and reduced waste and the incidence of food-related illness. Refrigeration allowed frozen meat and fresh produce to be stored and shipped. Steamships made water transports faster and more reliable. Railways were a more economical form of transport than animal-drawn carts and wagons, although they were limited to tracks, and therefore could not support an advancing army unless its advance was along existing railway lines. At the same time, the advent of industrial warfare in the form of bolt-action rifles, machine guns and quick-firing artillery sent ammunition consumption soaring during the First World War. In the twentieth century the advent of motor vehicles powered by internal combustion engines offered an alternative to animal transport for moving supplies forward of the railhead, although many armies still used animals during the Second World War. The development of air transport provided an alternative to both land and sea transport, but with limited tonnage and at high cost. An airlift over "the Hump" helped supply the Chinese war effort, and after the war the 1948 Berlin Air Lift was successful in supplying half of the city. With the subsequent development of large jets, aircraft became the preferred method of moving personnel over long distances, although it was still more economical to move cargo by sea and land. In forward areas, the helicopter was well-suited to moving troops and supplies, especially over rugged terrain. Models: Levels: Akin to the three levels of war, there can be considered to be three levels of logistics. Although modern communications and information technology may have blurred the distinction between them, the three-level hierarchy is deeply embedded in the organisational structure of military forces. Strategic logistics involves logistical activities that are conducted at national and international levels. It includes defining requirements, and arranging for the production and distribution of materiel to operational forces. Operational logistics involves logistical activities within the theatre of operations. It includes the reception, storage, and distribution of supplies and personnel, the hospitalisation of casualties, the maintenance and repair of equipment, and the operation of the intra-theatre transportation system. The operational level of war can be defined by the amount of logistical independence a formation has. For this reason logistics is most often discussed at the operational level. Tactical logistics involves the logistical activities of units engaged in combat. Unlike business logistics, the objective of military logistics is not cost effectiveness of the supply chain, but maximum sustained combat effectiveness. At the tactical level, efficiency is the overriding consideration, whereas at the strategic level effectiveness is the dominant concern. Analytical tools: The development of computers facilitated the use of analytic tools. Multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a sub-discipline of operations research that explicitly evaluates multiple conflicting criteria in decision making. The location of a supply depot could involve multiple considerations and constraints, such as the access to road, rail and sea transport, and travel times to desired delivery destinations. Sometimes the number of alternatives is small and they can be considered individually, but they can also be too large for this to be possible. The consideration of constraints simplifies the decision making. These constraints could be economic, such as cost, but might also be less easily quantified, such as political, strategic or operational considerations. The United States Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense call this methodology the Analysis of Alternatives, and require it for military acquisitions. Logistical planning requires forecasting of future consumption and attrition. There are two types of attrition: material attrition and personnel attrition. The former relates to the loss of equipment through combat, accidents and ordinary wear and tear through usage. Reliability theory can be used to forecast the mean time between failures of equipment and parts. This can be used to develop replacement factors, on which manufacturing and stock levels can be based. In the case of items like subsistence and soap, where demand is highly predictable, it is more convenient to use consumption factors instead. Forecasting of casualties in combat is more difficult, as past experience may not be a reliable guide to future losses, but is required for planning by the medical services. Mathematical models of combat have been developed for this purpose. Lanchester's laws are differential equations that describe the time dependence of two armies' strengths as a function of time. Mathematical models exist for scheduling of convoys to ensure that vehicles and the goods they carry arrive in time. Vehicle routing models can be used to select routes for timely delivery with minimum exposure to enemy action and without overloading the capacity of transportation networks. Scheduling models can be used to coordinate convoys the share the same routes. There are also models for inventory management that can be used to scheduling and quantity of orders, and stock levels, taking into account factors such as storage capacity, demand rates and delivery lead times. Notes: References: Further reading: External links: Media related to Military logistics at Wikimedia Commons

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military medicine

Legal status: Military medical personnel engage in humanitarian work and are "protected persons" under international humanitarian law in accordance with the First and Second Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, which established legally binding rules guaranteeing neutrality and protection for wounded soldiers, field or ship's medical personnel, and specific humanitarian institutions in an armed conflict. International humanitarian law makes no distinction between medical personnel who are members of the armed forces (and who hold military ranks) and those who are civilian volunteers. All medical personnel are considered non-combatants under international humanitarian law because of their humanitarian duties, and they may not be attacked and not be taken as prisoners of war; hospitals and other medical facilities and transports identified as such, whether they are military or civilian, may not be attacked either. The red cross, the red crescent and the red crystal are the protective signs recognised under international humanitarian law, and are used by military medical personnel and facilities for this purpose. Attacking military medical personnel, patients in their care, or medical facilities or transports legitimately marked as such is a war crime. Likewise, misusing these protective signs to mask military operations is the war crime of perfidy. Military medical personnel may be armed, usually with service pistols, for the purpose of self defense or the defense of patients. Historical significance: The significance of military medicine for combat strength goes far beyond treatment of battlefield injuries; in every major war fought until the late 19th century disease claimed more soldier casualties than did enemy action. During the American Civil War (1860–65), for example, about twice as many soldiers died of disease as were killed or mortally wounded in combat. The Franco-Prussian War (1870–71) is considered to have been the first conflict in which combat injury exceeded disease, at least in the German coalition army which lost 3.47% of its average headcount to combat and only 1.82% to disease. In new world countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Canada, military physicians and surgeons contributed significantly to the development of civilian health care. Improvements in military medicine have increased the survival rates in successive wars, due to improvements in medical evacuation, battlefield medicine and trauma care. Similar improvements have been seen in trauma practices during the Iraq war. Some military trauma care practices are disseminated by citizen soldiers who return to civilian practice. One such practice is where major trauma patients are transferred to an operating theater as soon as possible, to stop internal bleeding, increasing the survival rate. Within the United States, the survival rate for gunshot wounds has increased, leading to apparent declines in the gun death rate in states that have stable rates of gunshot hospitalizations. Military medicine by country: North America: Canada: Royal Canadian Medical Service Royal Canadian Dental Corps Canadian Forces Health Services Group Surgeon General (Canada) National Defence Medical Centre United States: U.S. Army U.S. Navy U.S. Air Force Europe: France: French Defence Health Service École du service de santé des armées Belgium: Belgian Medical Component Germany: Bundeswehr Joint Medical Service Bundeswehr Medical Academy Luftwaffe Institute of Aviation Medicine Naval Medical Institute Generaloberstabsarzt Generalstabsarzt Generalarzt Oberstarzt Oberfeldarzt Oberstabsarzt Stabsarzt Oberarzt (military) Assistenzarzt (military) Italy: Corpo sanitario dell'Esercito Italiano Corpo sanitario militare marittimo Corpo sanitario aeronautico Servizio sanitario dell'Arma dei carabinieri Russia: Serbia: Military Medical Academy Sweden: Surgeon-General of the Swedish Armed Forces Medical Corps of the Swedish Armed Forces Swedish Armed Forces Centre for Defence Medicine Surgeon-in-Chief of the Swedish Army Surgeon-in-Chief of the Swedish Navy Surgeon-in-Chief of the Swedish Air Force Swedish Army Medical Corps Swedish Naval Medical Officers' Corps Swedish Armed Forces Diving and Naval Medicine Centre Swedish Army Veterinary Corps United Kingdom: Asia: India: Director General Armed Forces Medical Services (India) Army Medical Corps (India) Armed Forces Medical College Command Hospital Indian Medical Service Israel: Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka Army Medical Corps Thailand: Phramongkutklao College of Medicine Vietnam: Vietnam Military Medical University (Học Viện Quân Y) in Hanoi Other regions: Australia: South Africa: South African Medical Service South African Military Health Service International: International Committee of Military Medicine Committee of Chiefs of Military Medical Services in NATO (COMEDS) See also: References: Further reading: Bowlby, Sir Anthony and Colonel Cuthbert Wallace. "The Development of British Surgery at the Front." The British Medical Journal 1 (1917): 705–721. Churchill, Edward D. "Healing by First Intention and with Suppuration: Studies in the History of Wound Healing.” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 19 (1964): 193–214. Churchill, Edward D. “The Surgical Management of the wounded at the time of the Fall of Rome.” Annals of Surgery 120 (1944): 268–283. Cowdrey, Albert E. Fighting for Life: American Military Medicine in World War II (1994), scholarly history, 400 pp Cowdrey, Albert E. United States Army in the Korean War: The Medics War (1987), full-scale scholarly official history; online free Fauntleroy, A.M. "The Surgical Lessons of the European War." Annals of Surgery 64 (1916): 136–150. Fazal, Tanisha M. (2024). Military Medicine and the Hidden Costs of War. Oxford University Press. Grissinger, Jay W. "The Development of Military Medicine." Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 3 (1927): 301–356. online Harrison, Mark. Medicine and victory: British military medicine in the Second World War (Oxford UP, 2004). Whayne, Col. Tom F. and Colonel Joseph H. McNinch. “Fifty Years of Medical Progress: Medicine as a Social Instrument: Military Medicine.” The New England Journal of Medicine 244 (1951): 591–601. Wintermute, Bobby A. Public health and the US military: a history of the Army Medical Department, 1818–1917 (2010). Primary sources: Kendrick, Douglas B. Memoirs of a Twentieth-Century Army Surgeon (Sunflower University Press, 19920, U.S. Army External links: U.S. military medicine Military Medicine related links from USAF Air University Association of Military Surgeons of the United States (AMSUS) Military Medicine, the International Journal of AMSUS Patriot Medicine, a vertical network for the military medical ecosystem Military Medicine Through Time. Life and Death in the War Zone | NOVA | PBS The Borden Institute Homepage Military Medicine Documents at USU Archive U.S. Army Preventive Medicine news archive from the 7th Infantry Division (Light) Panorama weekly newspaper 1988. Virtual Naval Hospital – a digital library of military medicine and humanitarian medicine http://www.ipernity.com/doc/57114/5652001/in/keyword/487917/self (military medical exams) Australian military medicine Australian Military Medicine Association International Magazine for Military Medicine MCIF MEDICAL CORPS INTERNATIONAL FORUM International Magazine for Military Medicine NATO Centre of Excellence for Military Medicine NATO Centre of Excellence for Military Medicine

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military occupation

Occupation and the laws of war: A dominant principle that guided combatants through much of history was "to the victory belong the spoils". Emer de Vattel, in The Law of Nations (1758), presented an early codification of the distinction between annexation of territory and military occupation, the latter being regarded as temporary, due to the natural right of states to their "continued existence". According to Eyal Benvenisti's The International Law of Occupation, Second Edition (2012), "The foundation upon which the entire [modern] law of occupation is based is the principle of inalienability of sovereignty through unilateral action of a foreign power, [and from this principle] springs the basic structural constraints that international law imposes upon the occupant." The Hague Convention of 1907 codified these customary laws, specifically within "Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State". The first two articles of that section state: Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. In 1949 these laws governing the occupation of an enemy state's territory were further extended by the adoption of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Much of GCIV is relevant to protected civilians in occupied territories and Section III: Occupied territories is a specific section covering the issue. Under GCIV, protected civilians in general are: those "who ... find themselves ... in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals". This generally refers to civilians of an enemy state, including refugees, and stateless persons. neutral citizens in occupied territory regardless of diplomatic status refugees of the occupying power prior to hostilities who cannot be arrested, prosecuted, or deported from occupied territory except for crimes committed after the conflict or beforehand which are also crimes under the law of the occupied state that would permit peacetime extradition as defined under Article 70 Nationals of an enemy state not a signatory or acceded to GCIV are not protected by it. Neutral citizens who are in the home territory of a belligerent nation if their country of origin has diplomatic ties or elsewhere outside occupied territory are not protected. Nationals of a co-belligerent (allied) state which holds diplomatic ties with a belligerent nation are excluded from protection in both locations. On whether the definition of military occupation applies to anywhere else, the 2023 United States Department of Defense (DOD)'s Law of War Manual states "the law of belligerent occupation generally does not apply to (1) mere invasion; (2) liberation of friendly territory; (3) non-international armed conflict; or (4) post-war situations (except for certain provisions of the GC [IV])." The DOD's statement is consistent with the definitions provided by Article 42 of the 1907 Fourth Hague Convention and Article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 6 of GCIV restricts the length of time that most of the convention applies: The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2. In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations. In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143. GCIV emphasised an important change in international law. The United Nations Charter (June 26, 1945) had prohibited war of aggression (See articles 1.1, 2.3, 2.4) and GCIV Article 47, the first paragraph in Section III: Occupied territories, restricted the territorial gains which could be made through war by stating: Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory. Article 49 prohibits the forced mass movement of protected civilians out of or into occupied state's territory: Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. ... The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Protocol I (1977): "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts" has additional articles which cover occupation but many countries including the U.S. are not signatory to this additional protocol. In the situation of a territorial cession as the result of war, the specification of a "receiving country" in the peace treaty merely means that the country in question is authorized by the international community to establish civil government in the territory. The military government of the principal occupying power will continue past the point in time when the peace treaty comes into force, until it is legally supplanted. "Military government continues until legally supplanted" is the rule, as stated in Military Government and Martial Law, by William E. Birkhimer, 3rd edition 1914. Qualification of a territory as occupied: Article 42 under Section III of the 1907 Fourth Hague Convention specifies that a "[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." This definition does not rely on a subjective perception, but rather on the "territory's de facto submission to the authority" of the occupant. Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions indicates that the definition applies to "all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting party", even if no armed resistance is encountered. The form of administration by which an occupying power exercises government authority over occupied territory is called military government. There does not have to be a formal announcement of the beginning of a military government, nor is there any requirement of a specific number of people to be in place, for an occupation to commence. Birkhimer writes: No proclamation of part of the victorious commander is necessary to the lawful inauguration and enforcement of military government. That government results from the fact that the former sovereignty is ousted, and the opposing army now has control. Yet the issuing such proclamation is useful as publishing to all living in the district occupied those rules of conduct which will govern the conqueror in the exercise of his authority. Wellington, indeed, as previously mentioned, said that the commander is bound to lay down distinctly the rules according to which his will is to be carried out. But the laws of war do not imperatively require this, and in very many instances it is not done. When it is not, the mere fact that the country is militarily occupied by the enemy is deemed sufficient notification to all concerned that the regular has been supplanted by a military government. (p. 61) Concept of effective control: The survey of the case-law regarding Article 42 of the 1907 Fourth Hague Convention reveals that the duration of effective control by the occupying power and its encounter with insurgents, terrorists or guerrillas that are able to exercise control over certain areas of the country are immaterial to the applicability of the law of occupation and do not alter the legal status of the occupied territory. For example, in 1948 the U.S. Military Tribunal in Nuremberg held that: In belligerent occupation the occupying power does not hold enemy territory by virtue of any legal right. On the contrary, it merely exercises a precarious and temporary actual control. End of occupation and authority shift: According to Eyal Benvenisti, occupation can end in a number of ways, such as: "loss of effective control, namely when the occupant is no longer capable of exercising its authority; through the genuine consent of the sovereign (the ousted government or an indigenous one) by the signing of a peace agreement; or by transferring authority to an indigenous government endorsed by the occupied population through referendum and which has received international recognition".

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military occupation

For example, in 1948 the U.S. Military Tribunal in Nuremberg held that: In belligerent occupation the occupying power does not hold enemy territory by virtue of any legal right. On the contrary, it merely exercises a precarious and temporary actual control. End of occupation and authority shift: According to Eyal Benvenisti, occupation can end in a number of ways, such as: "loss of effective control, namely when the occupant is no longer capable of exercising its authority; through the genuine consent of the sovereign (the ousted government or an indigenous one) by the signing of a peace agreement; or by transferring authority to an indigenous government endorsed by the occupied population through referendum and which has received international recognition". Examples of occupations: Some examples of military occupation came into existence as an outcome of World War I and World War II: Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA), encompassing much of the Middle East during 1917–1920 – separated to French (OETA North) and British (OETA South) domains; Allied-occupied Germany (1945–49) in the aftermath of World War II A number of post-1945 occupations have lasted more than 20 years, such as those of Namibia by South Africa, of East Timor by Indonesia, of Northern Cyprus by Turkey and of Western Sahara by Morocco. One of the world's longest ongoing occupations is Israel's occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem (1967–present) and the Gaza Strip (1967–present), both Palestinian territories, as well as the Syrian Golan Heights, which was occupied in 1967 and effectively annexed in 1981. Other prolonged occupations that have been alleged include those of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas, claimed by Argentina, by the United Kingdom (1833–present), of Tibet by PR China (1950), and of Hawaii by the United States (1893). The War Report makes no determination as to whether belligerent occupation is occurring in these cases. Examples of occupation which took place in the second half of the 20th century include: Egyptian occupation of Gaza, 1949/59–1967 Indian occupation of Goa, followed by its annexation (1961) Indonesian occupation of the West New Guinea, followed by its annexation (1963) Israeli occupation of the Western Golan Heights (1967–present) Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus (1974–present) Somali occupation of Ogaden in Ethiopia (1977–1978) Indonesian occupation of East Timor, followed by the annexation (1975–1999) Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, followed most areas by its annexation (1975) Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, followed by its annexation as the Kuwait Governorate and the Saddamiyat al-Mitla' District during the Gulf War (1990–1991) Examples of occupation in the 21st century include: Iraq occupied by US during the Iraq War of 2003–2011 (See: Coalition Provisional Authority) Ethiopian occupation of Somalia during 2006–2009 The Russian occupation of Georgia since 1992/2008 (See: Gori and Poti occupied by Russia during the Russo-Georgian War) Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War (2014–present): Occupation of parts of Donbas region and Crimea in Ukraine by Russia since 2014, followed by its Crimea annexation in 2014 (See: Russian military intervention in Ukraine, War in Donbas) Occupations during the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present): Parts of Kharkiv, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Mykolaiv oblasts, followed by partial annexation of occupied areas Former partial occupations of Chernihiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Poltava, Kyiv, Sumy and Zhytomyr oblasts, as well as Snake Island, in early 2022 (See: Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (24 February – 7 April 2022), Snake Island campaign) Turkish occupation of northern Syria in support of the Syrian opposition since 2016 United Arab Emirates takeover of Socotra in 2018 during the Yemeni Civil War See also: Banana Wars Allied-occupied Germany Ex parte Milligan German-occupied Europe Intervention (international law) Interventionism (politics) Police action Rule of Law in Armed Conflicts Project Status of forces agreement List of countries with overseas military bases Lists of military installations List of military occupations Notes: References: Further reading: Simon Collard-Wexler. 2013. Understanding Resistance to Foreign Occupation. PhD thesis, Columbia University. Occupied territory – the legal issues, legal provisions regarding occupation of territory by hostile power and implications for people protected by IHL. David Kretzmer, Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories. State University of New York Press, 2002. ISBN 0-7914-5338-3, 0-7914-5337-5 Sander D. Dikker Hupkes, What Constitutes Occupation? Israel as the occupying power in the Gaza Strip after the Disengagement, Leiden: Jongbloed 2008, 110 pp., ISBN 978-90-70062-45-3 Openacces Belligerent Occupation "The Law of Belligerent Occupation" Michal N. Schmitt (regarding occupation of Iraq) Law of Belligerent Occupation, Judge Advocate General's School, United States Army Military Government and Martial Law, by William E. Birkhimer, 3rd ed., rev. (1914), Kansas City, MO, Franklin Hudson Publishing Co. FM 27-10 "The Law of Land Warfare", Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., 18 July 1956. (This manual supersedes FM 27–10, 1 October 1940, including C 1, 15 November 1944. Changes required on 15 July 1976, have been incorporated within this document.) Chapter 6, Occupation Bellal, A. (editor). (2015) The War Report: Armed Conflict in 2014. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. External links: Occupation Studies Research Network - Interdisciplinary hub for the global community of scholars working on military occupation

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Military operation

Types of military operations: Military operations can be classified by the scale and scope of force employment, and their impact on the wider conflict. The scope of military operations can be: Theater: this describes an operation over a large, often continental, area of operation and represents a strategic national commitment to the conflict, such as Operation Barbarossa, with general goals that encompass areas of consideration outside the military, such as the economic and political impact of military goals on areas concerned. Campaign: this describes either a subset of the theatre of operation, or a more limited geographic and operational strategic commitment, such as the Battle of Britain, and need not represent total national commitment to a conflict, or have broader goals outside the military impact. Battle: this describes a subset of a campaign that will have specific military goals and geographic objectives, as well as clearly defined use of forces, such as the Battle of Gallipoli, which operationally was a combined arms operation originally known as the "Dardanelles landings" as part of the Dardanelles Campaign, where about 480,000 Allied troops took part. Engagement: this describes a tactical combat event or contest for a specific area or objective by actions of distinct units. For example, the Battle of Kursk, also known from its German designation as Operation Citadel, included many separate engagements, several of which were combined into the Battle of Prokhorovka. The Battle of Kursk, in addition to describing the initial German offensive operation, also included two Soviet counter-offensive operations: Operation Kutuzov and Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev. Strike: this describes a single attack, upon a specified target. This often forms part of a broader engagement. Strikes have an explicit goal, such as rendering facilities such as airports inoperable, assassinating enemy leaders, or limiting the delivery of supplies to enemy troops. Definition: Parallel to and reflecting this framework for operations are organized elements within the armed forces which prepare for and conduct operations at various levels of war. While there is a general correlation between the size of units, the area within which they operate, and the scope of mission they perform, the correlation is not absolute. In fact, it is ultimately the mission that a unit performs that determines the level of war within which it operates. Operational level of war: The operational level of war occupies roughly the middle ground between the campaign's strategic focus and the tactics of an engagement. It describes "a distinct intermediate level of war between military strategy, governing war in general, and tactics, involving individual battles". For example, during World War II, the concept applied to use of Soviet Tank Armies. See also: Civil-military operations Effects-Based Operations (EBO) List of military operations List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War List of World War II military operations Military operation plan Military operations other than war (MOOTW) Offensive (military) Operational View (OV) Notes: References: Armstrong, Richard N. Red Army Tank Commanders: The Armored Guards. Atglen, Penn.: Schiffer Military History, 1994. ISBN 0-88740-581-9. Glantz, David M. Soviet Military Operational Art: In Pursuit of Deep Battle. London: Frank Cass, 1991. ISBN 0-7146-3362-3, ISBN 0-7146-4077-8.