1988Unpublished venueRequires access

The Development of the Theory and Doctrine of Operational Art in the American Army, 1920-1940

Michael R. Matheny

Open publisher page 4 citations

Abstract

Operational art as a focus for U.S. doctrine has only recently emerged in our manuals. Initially, operational art emerged during the interwar period. Reflecting upon the experience of World War I, German and Soviet theorists recognized that mass armies and new technologies required successive military operations. Operational art was developed to provide the conceptual framework far successive operations. This monograph seeks to answer the question, was operational art developed in the U.S. Army during the interwar years? This paper uses lectures and texts from the curricular archives of the Command and General Staff College and the War College to analyze the theory and doctrine of the interwar period. The criteria used to evaluate the doctrine are: elements of campaign planning, sophistication of approach (role of logistics, joint and combined operations), and operational concepts. The key operational concepts examined are phased operations, culminating point, center of gravity, and lines of operation. This study concludes that operational art did exist in the American army during the interwar period. Moreover, in comparison to military thinking in Europe at that time, it was certainly as sophisticated. The Command and General Staff School at Ft. Leavenworth provided a doctrine increasingly influenced by the operational concepts of Clausewitz. The Army War College exercised joint planning and established a formal system of plans which linked strategic aims all the way dawn to tactical objectives. The implications of this study suggest that the interwar emphasis on concentration and planning may be useful to current doctrine developers.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Operational art as a focus for U.S. doctrine has only recently emerged in our manuals. Initially, operational art emerged during the interwar period. Reflecting upon the experience of World War I, German and Soviet theorists recognized that mass armies and new technologies required successive military operations. Operational art was developed to provide the conceptual framework far successive operations. This monograph seeks to answer the question, was operational art developed in the U.S. Army during the interwar years? This paper uses lectures and texts from the curricular archives of the Command and General Staff College and the War College to analyze the theory and doctrine of the interwar period. The criteria used to evaluate the doctrine are: elements of campaign planning, sophistication of approach (role of logistics, joint and combined operations), and operational concepts. The key operational concepts examined are phased operations, culminating point, center of gravity, and lines of operation. This study concludes that operational art did exist in the American army during the interwar period. Moreover, in comparison to military thinking in Europe at that time, it was certainly as sophisticated. The Command and General Staff School at Ft. Leavenworth provided a doctrine increasingly influenced by the operational concepts of Clausewitz. The Army War College exercised joint planning and established a formal system of plans which linked strategic aims all the way dawn to tactical objectives. The implications of this study suggest that the interwar emphasis on concentration and planning may be useful to current doctrine developers.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Operational art as a focus for U.S. doctrine has only recently emerged in our manuals. Initially, operational art emerged during the interwar period. Reflecting upon the experience of World War I, German and Soviet theorists recognized that mass armies and new technologies required successive military operations. Operational art was developed to provide the conceptual framework far successive operations. This monograph seeks to answer the question, was operational art developed in the U.S. Army during the interwar years? This paper uses lectures and texts from the curricular archives of the Command and General Staff College and the War College to analyze the theory and doctrine of the interwar period. The criteria used to evaluate the doctrine are: elements of campaign planning, sophistication of approach (role of logistics, joint and combined operations), and operational concepts. The key operational concepts examined are phased operations, culminating point, center of gravity, and lines of operation. This study concludes that operational art did exist in the American army during the interwar period. Moreover, in comparison to military thinking in Europe at that time, it was certainly as sophisticated. The Command and General Staff School at Ft. Leavenworth provided a doctrine increasingly influenced by the operational concepts of Clausewitz. The Army War College exercised joint planning and established a formal system of plans which linked strategic aims all the way dawn to tactical objectives. The implications of this study suggest that the interwar emphasis on concentration and planning may be useful to current doctrine developers.

Key concepts: Doctrine, Military doctrine, Development (topology), Operations research, Political science, Law, Engineering, Mathematics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Development of the Theory and Doctrine of Operational Art in the American Army, 1920-1940 — Research Paper | ScholarLens