Command and Control of River Crossings: Does Current Doctrine Support AirLand Battle Doctrine Intent?

Abstract

This study analyzes critical components of the initiative and synchronization tenets of AirLand Battle doctrine and Command and Control doctrine to determine if command and control of river crossing doctrine is compatible. It examines these critical components from the perspective of the non-linear, chaotic battlefield environment which stresses the use of decentralized execution and rapidity of operations. The study uses successful and unsuccessful historical river crossings as a basis for determining the criticality of doctrinal shortcomings between river crossing doctrine versus AirLand Battle and U.S. Army command and control doctrines. The study concludes that current river crossing doctrine does not adequately support AirLand Battle and U.S. Army command and control doctrines, in that the hasty river crossing is not doctrinally provided for in order to meet the challenges of the future battlefield.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Jun 05, 1992
Accession Number
ADA255196

Entities

People

  • Albert G. Marin Iii

Organizations

  • United States Army Command and General Staff College

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • C4I
  • Human Systems
  • Weapons Technologies

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Air Defense
  • Amphibious Vehicles
  • Armored Personnel Carriers
  • Armored Vehicles
  • Artillery
  • Combat Operations
  • Command And Control
  • Command And Control Systems
  • Doctrine
  • Human Behavior
  • Indirect Fire
  • Lessons Learned
  • Military History
  • Military Operations
  • Military Science
  • Second World War
  • Warfare

Readers

  • Joint Military Operations and Doctrine.

Technology Areas

  • Fully Networked C3
  • Fully Networked C3 - Command and Control