Many theorists have discussed the question of the fundamental principles of warfare. But the importance of the principle of concentration of force for warfare is controversial and the theories about the principle are too general to say something about the reality. So what is required to achieve success with a concentration of force? In order to answer this question, this essay deals with the basic principle of warfare on the concentration of force from recognized theorist, Carl von Clausewitz, Sir B.H. Liddell Hart, John M. Collins and Milan Vego, in the context of submarine attacks. The study has a deductible theoretical research effort and the purpose is to identify and describe which variables that contribute to success in implementing a concentration of force and how they affect submarine attacks. To create a coherent image of the principle, the principle is measurable by identifying variables to achieve success with concentration of force. From the theories, the author identifies five variables: aggregate strength, spread, opponent knowledge, mobility and misleading. To investigate the principle, the variables are tested against two submarine attacks during World War II, which are known to be cases where the concentration of force was used. The result shows that during the two attacks only two variables, combined strength and spread were identified. During the attack on the HX 229/SC 122 convoys, which from the attacking party are considered a successful concentration of force, all variables were identified. However, the attack on the SC 130 convoy was considered as a failed concentration of force, since only two variables were identified.

This dissertation examines the practice of writing military history in conjunction with military theory. It shows that in the pursuit of establishing military theory, military history is often actively distorted and manipulated by military theorists. Those military theorists who, consciously or subconsciously, succumb to this practice are identified here as "theorist-historians". The effect of this manipulation, its implications and consequences for the field of study as a whole are examined, as is the didactic nature of military history in the light of historical accuracy. In conclusion the role and effect of the military theorist~historians are evaluated against those of purely academic historians. The unique didactic needs of military history are also highlighted. Two twentieth century British military theorists, B. H. Liddell Hart and J. F. C. Fuller, were chosen as being representative of the military theorist-historian group. / Political Science / M.A. (International Politics)

This dissertation examines the practice of writing military history in conjunction with military theory. It shows that in the pursuit of establishing military theory, military history is often actively distorted and manipulated by military theorists. Those military theorists who, consciously or subconsciously, succumb to this practice are identified here as "theorist-historians". The effect of this manipulation, its implications and consequences for the field of study as a whole are examined, as is the didactic nature of military history in the light of historical accuracy. In conclusion the role and effect of the military theorist~historians are evaluated against those of purely academic historians. The unique didactic needs of military history are also highlighted. Two twentieth century British military theorists, B. H. Liddell Hart and J. F. C. Fuller, were chosen as being representative of the military theorist-historian group. / Political Science / M.A. (International Politics)

The principles of war have been questioned for a long time. Many scientists and military officers believe that they are too wide-ranging, contradictory or even invalid. Nonetheless, the principles of war have been institutionalised in several military doctrines and are used in military education. The purpose of this paper is to analyse whether the principles of war can explain the outcome of modern maritime warfare. Since the principles of war cannot be regarded as one theory, Liddell Hart’s theory of the principles of war is chosen for this analysis. Using a case study method, the Battle of Baltim in the Yom Kippur War and the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano in the battle of the Falklands Islands are analysed against the theory. Although Liddell Hart’s theory was developed by analysing land warfare, the principles of war are regarded as universal and generally applicable and therefore may be used for analysing maritime warfare. The result of the analysis shows that Liddell Hart’s principles of war can explain the outcome of modern maritime warfare. The principlessecurity, mobility, concentration and surprise are observed in both cases to varying degrees and they are significant in explaining the outcome of the event. Even though Liddell Hart’s theory can explain the outcome, it is shown that the principle of mobility rarely will be fully achieved in submarine operations because of the lack of self-defence systems against enemy weapons.

The principles of war have been institutionalised in the western world’s military doctrines despite many scientists and military officers having questioned them for a long time. They believe the principles are too broad, unspecific and even invalid. So why are they used in military education and why can they be found in doctrines? The purpose of this study is to examine if the principles of war could explain the outcome of asymmetric maritime conflicts.  Liddell Hart´s theory regarding the principles of war will be analysed through two cases, the battle of Latakia in the Yom Kippur war and the Sea tigers in the Sri Lankan civil war. Liddell Hart´s theory is based on analysing primarily land warfare, yet the principles of war are considered universal in all military arenas. Therefore, the theory should be applicable to maritime warfare. The analysis shows that the principles security and mobility could be identified to a lesser extent in the Sri Lankan case. However, in the case of the Battle of Latakia, the principles of concentration and surprise are identified to a lesser extent. The conclusion being that there could be a difference between irregular and regular forces regarding the use of the principles. Liddell Hart´s theory can explain the outcome of asymmetric maritime warfare because all four principles have been identified in both cases, however, in varying degrees.

No description available.