| Summary: | In wartime military organisations function in a dangerous and complex<br />environment. Doctrines are designed to ensure standardisation of thinking about<br />military conflict and the use of military power. Therefore, it is defined as an explicit<br />set of concepts according to which actions in a given field are discussed and<br />executed. However, without proper communication (conveying of information)<br />vital time and opportunities will be lost in a conflict situation. Efforts to standardise<br />military technology (command language) will ensure proper communication within<br />the framework of doctrine. However, this is difficult and many debates have<br />developed on the meaning of terms and how they manifested in the past.<br />In this process military historians have a very important responsibility.<br />Until the coining of the concept of operational art and the identification of the<br />operational level of war in the English-speaking world they tended to identify any<br />clash of arms as campaigns or battles and also not in a standardised manner. This<br />led to confusion as contemporary students on senior military courses throughout the<br />world are sometimes more bewildered by Military History, rather than being led to a<br />clearer understanding of military terminology. For example, the so-called Battle of<br />the Atlantic, 1939 – 1945 was clearly a campaign and not a battle, as the discussion<br />of the term campaign will later indicate.
|
|---|
