Fulltext search in archive

This article examines depth in the nonlinear battlefield and how planners might develop operational effects to defeat insurgencies. The former field manual stated that depth was the extension of operations in time, space and resources. This is a decidedly linear construction of the battlefield based on industrialized warfare between conventional enemies. The Global War on Terrorism operating environment is both nonlinear and non-contiguous. The enemy has no national borders or traditional infrastructure. If we understand cognitive depth, we can develop ways to paralyze the insurgent system or produce operational shock. Colonel John A. Warden III, an architect of the Persian Gulf War air campaign, introduced Five Rings Model as a methodology for successfully attacking and paralyzing a conventional enemy system in depth. An adaptation of this model depicts tangible targets that together constitute depth in the insurgent battle space. Source: Is There a Deep Fight in a Counterinsurgency by Lee K. Grubbs and Michael J. Forsyth, Military Review, July-August 2005.

This article presents not only an non-conventional approach towards psychology of military groups, but also offers the deep insight into British way of military thinking. This article is concerned with cohesion in its broadest sense. The term cohesion is usually used to describe one of the many contributions to morale. British military doctrine says that manoeuvres approach is an approach to operation in which shattering the enemy's overall cohesion and will to fight is paramount. The cohesion in this context is being used to describe the complex interaction of the physical, moral and conceptual components of fighting. A thorough understanding of the cohesion between people would enhance their fighting power. The good leadership is the means by which an understanding of what enables cohesion can be used to bring it about. Source: Human Cohesion; Shock and Surprise on the Battlefield (D. Rowland, D. Roney, J. Storr), British Army Review No 137, 2005.

The term Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) was originally defined in 1994, and launched in 1996 by continuing education centre of UNICOM, University of Jyäskylä (Finland). It serves to describe educational methods where subjects are taught through a foreign language with dual-focused aims, namely the learning of content, and the simultaneous learning of a foreign language. This was later extended to include learning through any language that is not the first language of the learner. The authoresses discuss several articles released among others at the Internet pages of Guardian Weekly or The OneStop Magazine: The Magazine for English Language Teachers (Prof. Dr. Bob Wilkinson, Prof. Dr. Kari Smith, and Mrs. Gil173 lian Rosner). In our country, at the Defence University Brno, this sort of language instructions is still at its very beginning. The decision to introduce this type of language instruction was by ordered by superior authorities, taking into account increasing language demands on graduates from bachelor type of studies. For military students this sort of learning is, at the same time, both more demanding but also more rewarding.

For many years we have been talking about simulators/trainers. The first phase of this process ended in 1998 by publishing "The Concept of Introducing Simulation and Trainer Technology". This year, in 2005, two simulation centres, in Brno and Vyškov, are opened. We elaborated new programmes for the preparation of mechanised and armour units. In these days the Instruction Book is printed and very soon it will be distributed into respective units and institutions of ACR. The author is a strong supporter of exploiting simulators. He knows from his own experiences that the quality of training is much better and soldier's skills grow in high speed. To understand this question better, the author enumerates several time-schedules for simulator training and recommends few time-tested procedures and methods of exercises. He believes that once you try to use simulators, you will see how advantageous this method is. The simulators can be used not only for practicing combat situations, but also for operations other than war. But this theme will be treated next time.

In fact, we have no universal method for evaluating impacts and protection of nature during military exercises and training. Establishing Environmental Training Group (NATOTraining Group/Army-Sub-Group) revolutionized the ways in which hazards were defined and analyzed to help communities protect themselves against these perils. Newly developed Training Impact Matrix/ Hazard & Impact Index methods enable truly to assess environmental dangers of military materials, vehicles, activities, energy consumption, and their impacts on important localities. Many features of above mentioned methods were introduced by Czech representatives in 2000 at Aachen (Germany). The index of environmental acceptability was further elaborated by Czech experts, among others by the authors of this article. It enables set levels of environmental dangers, their impacts, independently from organic structure of national forces, or individual countries. The article is accompanied by tables, mathematical formulas and patterns of calculation risk categories.