Talk:Military science

Untitled
I applaud your judicious use of both the comma and the term 'military' in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.209.85 (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Soviet (and later CIS) vs. Western military structures
Soviet style looks defense where as Western promotes an offensive style. Is it true and if so, perhaps make a mention? I think it works on two levels. One in theory (how the structures are desrcribed in the article) and practise maybe (NATO, the western model is all offensive).

-G

six branches
I think the statement that military science has six branches should be deleted, because it is almost certainly POV ( I am sure their are other divisions.)

"Other factors being equal, the simplest plan is preferable. (Occam's Razor)"

Deleted because it is a misunderstanding of occam's razor. Replaced with statement on parsimony.

it is not a science

Military science & Operational Art
This is the first crack at this topic. My question, is this page a good place for this discussion? The reason I am placing it here, is because I am seeking to cover tactics, op art, and strategy together as a whole. This is military theory, and is just a part of the overall science. Should the topic be split off into other pages, or is that going to risk splintering the entire area into shards so small, it will be next to impossible to get the entire picture? Thoughts?

Another question. Should the info here also be cross posted into the specific sections (and vice versa) on strategy, op art, and tactics? Or is this needlessly cluttering the 'pedia..... Dobbs 15:39 Sep 17, 2002 (UTC)

I'd go with putting most of the stuff in the individual tactics/opart/strategy sections. Things that are common to all three areas, or that describe how the three fit together, should go in here IMO. And I'd certainly not be in favour of redundant "cross posting" - not only is it clutter, but the fragments are likely to get out of step - Khendon 12:24 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)


 * A template could be created that links all of the relevant articles/sections, should this main article be split into several. --Impaciente 04:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong post. Then I had to leave town to attend a funeral. :( At least I got the article done.  This was the outline for Strategy, which needs to be better linked with Operational Art, and tactics.....  More in those sections to follow.  Thanks for your edit, sorry I screwed up.  Please take a look at the new stuff and tell me what you think.

Dobbs 21:53 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

Looks really good! :-) - Khendon 09:57 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)

I think quite a lot of the interpretation is a bit flaky. Most countries recognise 'principles of war', those used by UK, US and the like originate with the analysis of JFC Fuller (UK) in the aftermath of WW1, they're broadly similar but have intersting differences (eg UK has always recognised 'maintenance of morale') the PLA's are also similar. France and Russia's are very different and to each other. I also think the assesment of Russia is way off, the quality of their miltary thinking for high intensity warfighting has been extremely good for the last century, even if implementation has had not always kept up. They understood, analysed and practised tempo well before NATO had even heard of it, they originated the term 'operational art', they were the first to document and discuss manouevre warfare (it was US and UK fear of Soviet 'Operational Manaouver Groups' in the 1970s that led to the current thinking), and had a very good grasp of the operational level decades before the west.

Evans

Another thing the Soviets brought to the table was the notion of miitary doctrine. When I prepared a briefiing to the CG of TRADOC (Gen William DePuy) in mid 1975 about the evolution of Soviet tactics I made the point that while the Soviets employed the notion of doctrine in their development of strategy, op art, and tactics, the U.S. military dictionary didn't even include the term 'doctrine.' After a pretty tough session by a couple of principal staff officers, Major Generals, the notion of military doctrine quietly slipped into subsequent op art and tactical evolution.

military organization
Discussion of military organization in the article overlooks what I believe is the primary purpose of military organization: optimization of weapons employment in combat. This is basically true at the tactical level, but organization of units at the operational art levels, division and higher, is also structured to optimize subordinate unit employment in combat. De Cesare

not Military science
Military science is the study of the technique, psychology, practice and other phenomena which constitute war and armed conflict.With such a short description of what military science is, would it not add clarity to include what military science is not: Military science is not simply the application of science to military endevours. MCG, 01 Sept 06

Merging with Principles of War
I don't see any discussion of merging yet, so I'll start. Merging this article with Principles of War would be a bad move. However, there is currently too much information on the Principles of War here which should be moved to that article. The first few sections (organization, education and training, history, geography, and technology and equipment) are good, single paragraph, concise summaries, and link to the more detailed, longer articles. But the strategy and doctrine section is far too voluminous for this article. Instead of merging, move the detailed information to the appropriate article, and write a brief paragraph that summarizes it here. Nathanm mn 16:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The principles of war are a topic in their own right. Leaving it in its own page allows for better comparison and contrast of between the differing viewpoints of various militaries (for example, the Soviet's listed Momemtum as a principle and the Israeli's include Fighting Spirit, Depth & Reserve, Trickery (variant of surprise), and Consecutiveness & Continuity. All of these viewpoints can be better discussed relative to one another without the distraction of the details of Military Science. (Raymond Hettinger)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.235.2 (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Military strategy and doctrine
This section is outright dreadful. Two major systems? How about the "Scandinavian" system, where highly trained conscripts are combined with a high ratio of officers? (it is in fact vaugely based on the German "jaeger"(ranger) troops tradition, but extended to encompass the whole military) What about all the third world militaries that draw their main doctrines from elsewhere than "Russian" doctrine? (some are very firepower based, like French and american doctrine for example, others operate more like German recon troops from WWII) Is Iranian and Hezbollah doctrine "western" or "Russian"? Quite obviously neither i would say. (they are more like Scandinavian but not quite to be called the same category) Brazilian or Indian doctrines likewise are also quite departed from either of those categories even if simplified extremely.

Russian vs Western is just an outright wrong way of dividing it up, it was never even truly right during the cold war.

"the russian system borrows from these systems as well"? The Soviet military theories was part of the creation of them both before the different doctrines split up and later, as for example USA has after WWII in a few cases adopted almost unchanged parts of Soviet doctrine. More than the opposite, although thats likely because USSR was less able to make direct use of such due to technical or political reasons.

Modern Russian doctrine is different by far from Soviet doctrine however, therefore bundling together the both is simply terrible. And equating USSR with Russia is simply just very offensive for no good reason.

"Western military doctrine relies heavily..." this part seems more like bragging than any serious differentiating description.

81.224.32.80 (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And the stupidity involved here is so grave... So many dumb stereotypes, like the "soviets are rigid, they rely on numbers" etc. section should just be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.199.238 (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This picture should be removed. The non-Nato alliances are not legit alliances by any stretch, esp SADC and PSC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.104.13 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Military sociology
I think the article should have a section on military sociology. Any objections? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.army-technology.com/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"Military preparedness" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Military preparedness should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 24 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Military and Society?
A new section, titled Military and Society, has been recently added to this article. I don't think it fits here.

The subject, "Military and Society", is capitalized like a proper noun. Not only is it not a proper noun, AFAIK, it's not even a coherent term -- something identified and discussed by name in multiple sources. Further, even if it was, how is it a sub-category of military science? Maybe some form of how some military might interact with its society (or some other society?) could be studied or discussed, but that doesn't automatically make it fall under military science. Maybe something like this could go in some other article, like Civil–military relations or some such, but I see no reason to include it in this article.

Unless multiple sources identifying this as an agreed and coherent subject under military science are presented, I'm for deleting this whole section, including its new subsection titled "Recruitment and Retention".

Pinging recent editors, , , ,. Comments? --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 00:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sooker2011 (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Hi, I apologize if I am doing this the wrong way as I have never communicated with anyone via Wikipedia before. My intention are only to be of help in this manner. I am the Editor-in-Chief of the newly published Handbook of Military Sciences and a past President to the International Society of Military Sciences and a fellow to the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society and the European Research Group on Military and Society. As both an officer and an academic at a national defense university college much of my research and teaching has been in the field of Military and Society and Philosophy of (Military) Science. "Military and Society" is one of twelve sections in our Handbook on Military Sciences that is being published OpenAccess with Springer. The research community is worldwide and we meet regularly at different venues across the globe. You ask how Military and Society can be a sub-field of Military Science and that perhaps it, rather, should go into an article on Civil-military relations. My understanding of Military Science is that it covers all scientific efforts of producing knowledge about the military, on the military and in the military for the benefit for both the military itself and the society it is sat to serve. Military and Society is a central part of all military education as it provides the broader understanding of the role of the military in society, it challenges the purpose and utility of military force in a way that provides our cadets, students and other learners with a deeper understanding of how to fulfill their professional obligations as soldiers. As such, it is a wider concept than civil-military relations, which mainly deals with the power relation between the civilian authorities and the military. I hope you will reconsider your stance on its place in the Wikipedia page on Military Science, as Wikipedia is such an important venue for all those dealing with the military and science in general and military and society in particular.

Again I apologize for any wrong doing, it has only been my intention to lend my insight to the further development of Wikipedia.

Pinging recent editors, , , ,.

Post nominals for military science doctorate
What is/are proper Post-nominal letters for someone with a "doctorate of military science" or "doctorate in military science"? D.Sc.Mil., D.MSc, or both? John McCain has D.MSc, but the sources don't match. This page doesn't say. Anyone know? RudolfoMD (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"العلوم العسكرية" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%88%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B3%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9&redirect=no العلوم العسكرية] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"Funds for defense industries" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Funds_for_defense_industries&redirect=no Funds for defense industries] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"Rotation" not even mentioned
Nothing on troop rotation, which complements troop replacement. "Multiple R" programmes (rotate, refresh, recover, etc.) go hand in hand with repair and training, are essential and keep the army running. Totally left out so far. Arminden (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)