| Revision as of 15:52, 31 January 2007 editMike Cline (talk | contribs)Administrators53,120 edits →See also← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:10, 26 November 2017 edit undoMe, Myself, and I are Here (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users105,888 editsm →See also: cap | ||
| (30 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| '''Warden's Five Rings''' represent a theory of military strategic attack, based on five levels of system attributes. They are named in honor of ] ], a former ] officer and theorist of air power. | |||
| The Five Rings include: | |||
| ] ], ], established a theory of strategic attack based on five levels of system attributes. They are: | |||
| *Leadership | * ] | ||
| *Organic/System Essentials | * Organic/System Essentials/Key Production | ||
| *Infrastructure | * ] | ||
| *Population | * ] | ||
| *Fielded Military Forces |
* Fielded Military Forces | ||
| Each level of system or "ring" was considered one of the enemy's centers of gravity. The idea behind Warden's five rings was to attack each of the rings to paralyze their forces, an objective also known as ''physical paralysis''. To optimize a strike attack the attacker would engage as many rings as possible with special emphasis on taking out the center ring, which is the enemy's leadership. This would result in total physical ]. | |||
| Warden's theories on the application of air power in modern war have been criticized as little more than a reiteration of earlier strategic bombing concepts discredited by historical analysis of the ] and the ], similar to the effect on the writings of ]. Warden differs from Douhet in assigning leadership the highest priority, where Douhet espoused attacking the morale of populations. This made Warden's theory more applicable for attacking developing and weaker regimes, while Douhet's theories were based on stronger nations engaged in large conventional wars as was the concern in interwar Europe. Dismissal of the theories has led some to mistakenly conclude that the theories have no application, thereby missing the application of air power as a modern means of accomplishing the Strategic Indirect of Sir ]. | |||
| == See also == | == See also == | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| == References == | |||
| {{Reflist}} | |||
| == External links == | == External links == | ||
| * | * | ||
| * | * | ||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| {{US-mil-stub}} | {{US-mil-stub}} | ||
| ] | |||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
Latest revision as of 05:10, 26 November 2017
Warden's Five Rings represent a theory of military strategic attack, based on five levels of system attributes. They are named in honor of Col. John A. Warden III, a former United States Air Force officer and theorist of air power.
The Five Rings include:
- Leadership
- Organic/System Essentials/Key Production
- Infrastructure
- Population
- Fielded Military Forces
Each level of system or "ring" was considered one of the enemy's centers of gravity. The idea behind Warden's five rings was to attack each of the rings to paralyze their forces, an objective also known as physical paralysis. To optimize a strike attack the attacker would engage as many rings as possible with special emphasis on taking out the center ring, which is the enemy's leadership. This would result in total physical paralysis.
Warden's theories on the application of air power in modern war have been criticized as little more than a reiteration of earlier strategic bombing concepts discredited by historical analysis of the Second World War and the Vietnam War, similar to the effect on the writings of Giulio Douhet. Warden differs from Douhet in assigning leadership the highest priority, where Douhet espoused attacking the morale of populations. This made Warden's theory more applicable for attacking developing and weaker regimes, while Douhet's theories were based on stronger nations engaged in large conventional wars as was the concern in interwar Europe. Dismissal of the theories has led some to mistakenly conclude that the theories have no application, thereby missing the application of air power as a modern means of accomplishing the Strategic Indirect of Sir B. H. Liddell Hart.
See also
References
External links
- Air Theory for the Twenty-First Century, by Col. John Warden, USAF
- Warden and the Air Corps Tactical School
 | This United States military article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |