Talk:Principles of war

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Principles of war article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Historiography / Technology

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military historiography task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Merger to military science[edit]

The US sections of both articles are near twins of each other (written from the same source material?) we don't need both. The UK section of this article will fit in well with section 6 of the military science article. Alternatively we can move the Russian, Soviet, Chinese e.t.c sections of that article to this one ,and have a main article re-direct back to this page.Koonan the almost civilised 23:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unity of command[edit]

This is currently linked to a fire fighting article. Although I'm sure it applies in fire fighting, the principle obviously has much wider and older application in the military sense, and the article needs to be written--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initiative[edit]

What's the source for stating that the western view of initiative is all about offensive action? The replaced definition is far closer to the truth. Or is the revised definition the CIS (misguided) view of the western defintion of initiative? NATO doesw not seem to have an official defintion. That means the definition used by the Oxford Dictionary (which NATO officially uses) is the correct reference.Nfe (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Principles of War with Only Strategic Implications[edit]

"due to the changing nature of warfare and military technology, since the interwar period, the principles are largely applied to the strategic decision-making, and in some cases, to operational mobility of forces."

I apologize for posting anonymously, but I'm a wikipedia newbie and creating an account appears to be outside of my control. I am concerned that there is little evidence for the above statement. A principle is a fundamental truth: it shouldn't vary across time. The instantiation may change as technology evolves--no question there, but the principles of war are a search for the equation that explains how to win, all the time, every time. There are many scholars much more versed than I--I will attempt to direct them to this page. 75.36.142.93 (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian section seems off-topic and unhelpful[edit]

The Canadian principles of war mirror UK ones except for the substitution in of "administration" for "flexibility". The other two bits of the entry are irrelevant to the topic. This could be easily deleted and put as a footnote to UK principles of war. KC Gustafson (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually sustainability not flexinbility. UK used to call 'sustainability' 'administration'.Nfe (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Principles of war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False list of Russian principles of war[edit]

Article claimed that "The Russian principles of military art, as interpreted by the US Army in the Field Manual 100-61, 1998 emphasise: [...]", and gave a list of "Russian" principles.

However, the document in question (US Army Field Manual 100-61, 1998) does not discuss Russian principles of war at all. The same list of principles is given in a general context with no relation to a specific country. I have therefore removed the section claiming to represent Russian principles of war.

I suspect that the rest of the section on the Soviet Union/Russia (and the rest of the article) is similarly problematic. Aquaducked (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthashastra[edit]

Arthashastra seems to fit within the scope of this article and could be added to the Principles_of_war#Historical_principles section. DTM (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]