AirLand Battle doctrine's acceptability in NATO is assessed. In doing so, the doctrine is examined in regard to three elements: NATO doctrine, the Alliance's other national tactical doctrines and Allied Command Europe's Follow-On Forces Attack. AirLand Battle doctrine, as presented in the Army's FM 100-5, was compared with NATO doctrine, as presented in ATP 35(A). The comparison indicates general consistency between the doctrines. A review of the national tactical doctrines espoused within the Alliance indicates NATO permits significant variance. Further, most of these doctrines recognize that successful defense requires some depth and emphasize the importance of offensively - oriented reserve forces. These factors are two of the AirLand Battle doctrine's basic elements. Finally, a review of AirLand Battle doctrine's approach to the employment of air is compared with FOFA's approach. Clearly, the two approaches will compete for assets, but this does not render them incompatible. Rather, commanders employing AirLand Battle doctrine in NATO will have to direct available air sorties against the most significant targets in priority. It is concluded, then, that AirLand Battle doctrine should be acceptable to both NATO commanders and to our NATO allies. (Author)
Should the U.S. Army's Airland Battle Doctrine Be Acceptable to NATO
1986
34 pages
Report
Keine Angabe
Englisch
NTIS | 1988
|Airland Battle in NATO, A European View
NTIS | 1984
|Tema Archiv | 1987
|Army communications for the AirLand Battle
Tema Archiv | 1983
|Corps Communications for the Airland Battle
NTIS | 1985
|