Description
The purpose of this monograph is to investigate each service’s perspective of the battlefield to understand how those views can be integrated for maximum joint effect. Its thesis is that battlespace can be an enabling concept that facilitates this integration. The author summarizes each service’s definition of battlespace and what the definition means to each –what the implications of the definition are for how the army, navy, air force, and marine corps approach their fight. The survey finds literal definitions and doctrinal discussions of battlespace for the army and navy; the marines share a definition with the navy and are developing doctrine for the concept. The air force does not define the term. However, whether or not there is a literal definition for the term, each service’s doctrine contains elements of the battlespace concepts treated in the army and navy definitions: space, time, synchronization, unity of effort, and dominance. The marine corps adds an electromagnetic dimension to their battlespace. The comparison concludes that battlespace represents both the physical environment of the battlefield and an intellectual vision of the same for each service. The author provides a joint definition of battlespace, a definition currently not found in the joint doctrine. The addition of battlespace as a bona fide joint doctrinal concept could serve three purposes. First, it could add to the current “concepts of operational design” –center of gravity, lines of operation, and culmination –as an operational planning tool that assists the synchronization and integration of joint forces and effort on the battlefield. Second, it could inspire a battlefield organization along lines that promote unity of effort for a particular mission, such as close, high, deep, rear, and so forth. Third, it can promote broader air, land, and sea “mindedness” for the joint force commander and among his subordinate component commanders. The net effect of joint use of the battlespac
