Talk:Principles of war

Merger to military science
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)

Unity of command
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)

Initiative
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)

Principles of War with Only Strategic Implications
"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)

Canadian section seems off-topic and unhelpful
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)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Principles of war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050308040939/http://www-cgsc.army.mil:80/carl/resources/csi/csirp_pwatj/csirp_pwatj.asp to http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/csirp_pwatj/csirp_pwatj.asp
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927011539/http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/07/2807407 to http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/07/2807407
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050308040939/http://www-cgsc.army.mil:80/carl/resources/csi/csirp_pwatj/csirp_pwatj.asp to http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/csirp_pwatj/csirp_pwatj.asp

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

False list of Russian principles of war
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)

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