Headquarters United States Marine Corps
Washington, D.C. 20380-1775
30 July 1997
This publication is about winning in combat. Winning requires
many things: excellence in techniques, an appreciation of the
enemy, exemplary leadership, battlefield judgment, and focused
combat power. Yet these factors by themselves do not ensure
success in battle. Many armies, both winners and losers, have
possessed many or all of these attributes. When we examine
closely the differences between victor and vanquished, we draw
one conclusion. Success went to the ar- mies whose leaders,
senior and junior, could best focus their efforts—their skills
and their resources—toward a decisive end. Their success
arose not merely from excellence in techniques, procedures,
and material but from their leaders’ abilities to uniquely and effectively combine them. Winning in combat depends upon tactical leaders who can think creatively and act decisively.
This book pertains equally to all Marine leaders, whether
their duties entail combat service support, combat support, or
combat arms. It applies to the Marine air-ground task force
commander as well as the squadron commander and the fire
team leader. All Marines face tactical decisions in battle
regardless of their roles. Tactical leaders must develop and
hone their warfighting skills through study and practice. This
publication serves as a guide for that professional development.
It addresses the theory of tactics and its application in a chaotic
and uncertain environment.
The concepts and ideas within this publication are battletested. Throughout our history, one of the most important reasons for the success of the United States Marine Corps has
been the military skill of our leaders at every level of command. Through their tactical skill and battlefield judgment, our
commanders achieved tactical and operational advantage at the
decisive time and place.
This publication is a revision of Fleet Marine Force Manual
1-3, Tactics, of 1991 and supersedes it. Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication (MCDP) 1-3 fully retains the spirit, scope,
and basic concepts of its predecessor. MCDP 1-3 further develops and refines some of those concepts; in particular, a new
chapter has been added on exploiting success and finishing,
and some of the original material has been reorganized and
Tactics is in consonance with MCDP 1, Warfighting, and
the other Marine warfighting publications. Presuming an understanding of maneuver warfare, MCDP 1-3 applies it specifically to the tactical level of war. Like MCDP 1, it is not
prescriptive but descriptive, providing guidance in the form of
concepts and ideas. This publication establishes the Marine
Corps’ philosophy for waging and winning battles.
General, U.S. Marine Corps
Commandant of the Marine Corps
DISTRIBUTION: 142 000002 00
© 1997 United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy. All rights reserved.
MCDP 1-3
Chapter 1. Understanding Tactics
An Art and A Science—The Environment—How
We View Combat and How We Fight—Marine
Corps Tactics—Conclusion
Chapter 2. Achieving a Decision
Anzio: A Model of Tactical Indecisiveness—Cannae:
A Clear Tactical Decision Achieved—Understanding
Decisiveness—Military Judgment–Understanding the
Situation–Acting Decisively—Conclusion
Chapter 3. Gaining Advantage
Combined Arms—Maneuver—Exploiting the
Environment–Terrain–Weather–Periods of Darkness
or Reduced Visibility—Complementary Forces—Surprise—
Trapping the Enemy—Developing an Ambush
MCDP 1-3
Chapter 4. Being Faster
Speed in Combat—What is Speed?—Speed and Time—
Timing—Relative Speed—Continuing Speed—Speed
and Change—Becoming Faster—Conclusion
Chapter 5. Adapting
Anticipation—Improvisation—Flexible Plans—
Chapter 6. Cooperating
Control in Combat—Cooperation—Discipline—Conclusion
Chapter 7. Exploiting Success and Finishing
Building on Advantage—Consolidation, Exploitation,
and Pursuit—Finishing the Enemy—Use of the Reserve in
Chapter 8. Making it Happen
Doctrine—Education—Training—Training and
Educational Methods–Professional Reading and
Historical Study–Tactical Exercises–Wargaming–
Terrain Walks–Competition–Critiques—Conclusion
Chapter 1
Understanding Tactics
“In tactics, the most important thing is not whether you go
left or right, but why you go left or right.”1
—A. M. Gray
“There is only one principle of war and that’s this. Hit the
other fellow, as quick as you can, and as hard as you can,
where it hurts him the most, when he ain’t looking.”2
—Sir William Slim
MCDP 1-3
Understanding Tactics
his book is about winning in combat. Winning requires a
thorough understanding and knowledge of tactics. But
what is tactics?
Tactics is “the art and science of winning engagements and
battles. It includes the use of firepower and maneuver, the integration of different arms and the immediate exploitation of success to defeat the enemy,”3 as well as the sustainment of forces
during combat. It also “includes the technical application of
combat power, which consists of those techniques and procedures for accomplishing specific tasks within a tactical
action.”4 This description is from Marine Corps doctrine and
reflects our approach to tactics. What does it tell us?
Tactics refers to the concepts and methods we use to accomplish a particular objective in either combat or military operations other than war. In war, tactics is the application of
combat power to defeat the enemy in engagements and battles.
Combat power is the total destructive force we can bring to
bear against the enemy; it is a unique product of a variety of
physical, moral, and mental factors.5 Tactics results in the actions and counteractions between opposing forces. It includes
the use of maneuver, supported by the application and coordination of fires, to gain advantage in order to defeat the enemy.
MCDP 1-3
In military operations other than war, tactics may be the
schemes and methods by which we perform other missions,
such as to control a crowd or to provide a secure environment
for the delivery of food, medicine, or supplies to a nation or
people in need.
As stated in the definition, tactics is a combination of art
and science to gain victory over the enemy. The art of tactics
lies in how we creatively form and apply military force in a
given situation. It involves the creation, positioning, and maneuver of combat power. When do we flank the enemy, and
when do we ambush him? When do we attack, and when do we
infiltrate? How do we use speed and momentum to achieve a
decisive advantage? This creativity is a developed capacity, acquired through education, practice, and experi- ence.
The science of tactics lies in the technical application of
combat power. It includes mastering the techniques and procedures that contribute to the development of warfighting skills
such as marksmanship, navigation, gunnery, and close air support. The execution of these techniques and procedures must
become second nature for us; this requires intensive and continuous training. Without mastery of basic warfighting skills,
artistry and creativity in their application are impossible.
MCDP 1-3
Understanding Tactics
Now that we have examined the art and science of tactics,
let us look at how we use tactics to complement strategy and
campaigning. Strategy and campaigning bring our forces to a
particular place at a particular time. We use tactics to win in
combat. A war typically involves many individual engagements
that form a continuous fabric of activity. Sometimes a cluster
of engagements flows together to make up a battle that may
last for hours, days, or even several weeks. Tactical competence is indispensable to victory in such engagements and battles. Leaders at the operational and strategic levels use tactical
victories to bring about success in the campaign and, ultimately, in the war as a whole.
In combat, our objective is victory. Sometimes this involves
the complete destruction of the enemy’s forces; at other times
achieving victory may be possible by attacking the enemy’s
will to fight. The Marine Corps must be equally prepared to
win during both situations—those in which the enemy forces
must be completely destroyed (as during World War II), and
those in which the complete destruction of the enemy’s forces
may not be necessary or even desirable. As the Commanding
General of the 1st Marine Division in Des-ert Storm, stated,
“Our focus was not on destroying everything. Our focus was
on the Iraqi mind and getting behind [it].”6 He knew that the
path to victory did not lie in the total destruction of the Iraqi
forces, but in undermining their will to fight.
MCDP 1-3
The tactical arena is a dynamic, ever-changing environment.
The complexity of this environment makes combat chaotic and
unpredictable. As an example of confusion and chaos on the
battlefield, consider the amphibious assault on the island of Tarawa in November 1943.
During the assault, the combination of high casualties, lack
of effective communications, and disruption of the 2d and 8th
Marine Regiments’ landings on the assault beaches led to a
chaotic and nearly disastrous situation for the 2d Marine Division. Units were decimated under heavy fire. Surviving
Marines huddled together under a coconut log sea wall in intermingled units without effective communications. Landing craft
carrying reinforcements and supplies could not make it over a
coral reef to the landing beaches. Only through daring leadership, initiative, and teamwork were Marines able to get off the
beach and annihilate the defending Japanese force.7
The violence of combat only increases the level of confusion
and chaos. Robert Sherrod, a Time and Life correspondent at
Iwo Jima, gave testimony to this chaos in what he called “war
at its worst”:
The first night on Iwo Jima can only be described as a nightmare in hell. . . . About the beach in the morning lay the
MCDP 1-3
Understanding Tactics
dead. They had died with the greatest possible violence. Nowhere in the Pacific have I seen such badly mangled bodies.
Many were cut squarely in half. Legs and arms lay fifty feet
from any body.8
Battle is the collision of opposing forces—animate, interactive, and unpredictable in behavior. Performance varies from
week to week, day to day, and even hour to hour as a unit interacts with its environment and the enemy.
Military forces are complex systems consisting of individuals and equipment. They interact internally and externally in
seemingly chaotic ways. As Clausewitz wrote, “A battalion is
made up of individuals, the least important of whom may
chance to delay things or . . . make them go wrong.”9 As
Marines, we believe the actions of single individuals can have
great impact in combat and can also make things go right. For
example, Sergeant John Basilone as a machine gunner at Guadalcanal contributed “in large measure to the virtual annihilation of a Japanese regiment.”10 He steadfastly manned his
position in the face of repeated wave-type assaults and was instrumental in breaking the enemy’s ability to press the attack,
forcing them to retreat without achieving their goals.
Battle is also influenced by a variety of external conditions—directions and missions established by authorities, terrain, weather, attitudes of the civilian populace—that often
cannot be foreseen. The outcome of combat can only be anticipated in terms of probabilities.
MCDP 1-3
Technology also affects the tactical environment—but not
always as anticipated. Technology may reduce uncertainty, and
it also may increase it. The Spartans, organized into phalanxes,
attacked in close formation, making it easy to see and control
one’s forces. Today, tactical formations are less well-defined
as distances between elements have increased, complicating
command and control. Increased weapons lethality, communications range, and tactical mobility cause us to disperse forces
over greater distances. War is more fluid as a result of technology. While the machine gun bogged down warfare in World
War I, tactical innovations like the tank, the airplane, and the
aircraft carrier made warfare more rapid and free-flowing in
World War II.
Future battle is likely to become even more chaotic. Although combat in Operation Desert Storm was between fairly
well-defined forces in a well-defined space, the forces and operating areas in Vietnam, Somalia, and Grenada were far less
well-defined. Enemy units were dispersed and often hidden
within the civilian population, making them hard to detect and
harder to target. They converged at a time and place of their
choosing. Future opponents may choose to fight in this manner
to offset our overwhelming superiority in fire- power.
This chaotic environment also brings opportunity.
Clausewitz wrote about combat, “No other human activity is
so continuously . . . bound up with chance.”11 The challenge is
MCDP 1-3
Understanding Tactics
to recognize opportunity when it occurs in the midst of chaos
and uncertainty and to seize it to obtain a clear, unambiguous
victory. When viewed through time, even the most chaotic of
systems may reveal recurring patterns that may then be exploited. The experienced tactician will look for these recurring
patterns that can be exploited to advantage.
How we view the combat environment in large part determines
how we operate in it. There are two competing views of combat. Some see it in simple terms as if the battle and the environment represent a closed mechanical system. This
“deterministic” view argues that combat is predictable. Among
the advocates of this view are military theorists who seek prescriptive rules for battle and analysts who predict battle outcomes based upon force ratios. The other view is that combat
is chaotic and uncertain. In this “probabilistic” view, battle is
seen as a complex phenomenon in which participants interact
with one another and respond and adapt to their environment.
The probabilistic viewpoint sees combat as unpredictable. The
distinctions between these two views of combat are im-portant.
They drive the choices commanders make in combat.
MCDP 1-3
The deterministic view of combat often leads to centralized
control. It can be a recipe for micromanagement stifling the initiative subordinates need to deal with combat’s inevitable uncertainties. Overly prescriptive orders and plans inhibit a unit’s
ability to cope with uncertainty and change. Eventually, the
unit, inflexible and unable to adapt, may be overwhelmed by
The probabilistic view of combat recognizes that the complexity and uncertainty of war leads to a more decentralized
approach to control. We place greater trust in subordinates to
achieve a desired result. Through use of mission orders and
commander’s intent, subordinates are able to handle unforeseen
situations and exploit opportunities that arise.
Marine Corps tactics are based on the probabilistic view of
combat. We must be able to cope with uncertainty and operate
in an ever-changing combat environment. We must be flexible
and responsive to changes in the situation. There are no fixed
rules that can be applied automatically, and every situation is
different. As one tactics manual put it more than half a century
ago: “The leader who frantically strives to remember what
someone else did in some slightly similar situation has already
set his feet on a well-traveled road to ruin.”12
Leaders must remember that there are no fixed rules and no
precise checklists, but there are bounds. That is why successful
leaders study, train, and exercise their minds to improve tactical proficiency. We study examples of successes and failures
MCDP 1-3
Understanding Tactics
not to emulate someone else’s scheme, but to increase our own
tactical understanding and competence.
The successful execution of Marine Corps tactics hinges on the
thoughtful application of a number of tactical concepts so as to
achieve success on the battlefield. Key among these concepts
are achieving a decision, gaining advantage, being faster,
adapting, cooperating, and exploiting success. Each of these
concepts is discussed in detail later in this publication. Creative
and practical employment of these ideas throughout the planning and execution of tactics leads to success. These concepts
are not stand-alone ideas but are to be combined so as to
achieve an effect that is greater than their separate sum. Part of
the art and science of tactics lies in knowing where and when to
apply these concepts and which combinations to use to achieve
the desired effect.
The number and definition of these concepts are not fixed,
and their order of presentation does not indicate their value.
Marines may find in their studies new or slightly different ideas
that may be just as important. These ideas are presented in this
publication so that readers will think about how to achieve success on the battlefield. These concepts help to provide a
MCDP 1-3
framework for developing a tactical mindset that has long been
a hallmark of Marine leaders, from corporal through general.
Tactical excellence is the hallmark of a Marine Corps leader.
We fight and win in combat through our mastery of both the
art and the science of tactics. The art of tactics involves the
creative and innovative use of maneuver warfare concepts,
while the science of tactics requires skill in basic warfighting
techniques and procedures. It is our responsibility as Marine
leaders to work continuously to develop our own tactical proficiency and that of our Marines. Understanding the concepts
presented in this publication provides a foundation for that
Chapter 2
Achieving a Decision
“It follows, then, that the leader who would become a competent tactician must first close his mind to the alluring formulae that well-meaning people offer in the name of victory.
To master his difficult art he must learn to cut to the heart of
a situation, recognize its decisive elements and base his
course of action on these.”1
—Infantry in Battle
“We must be ruthlessly opportunistic, actively seeking out
signs of weakness, against which we will direct all available
combat power. And when the decisive opportunity arrives, we
must exploit it fully and aggressively, committing every ounce
of combat power we can muster and pushing ourselves to the
limits of exhaustion.”2
—FMFM 1, Warfighting
MCDP 1-3
Achieving a Decision
actics is the employment of units in combat. The objective of tactics is to achieve military success through a decision in battle. Using tactical actions to achieve a decision is
central to Marine Corps tactics.
In the past, military forces have often won only incremental
gains when they sought victory—taking a hill here or a town
there, pushing the front forward a few kilometers, or adding to
the body count. Sometimes these incremental gains were the result of a competent enemy or the chaotic nature of war. Many
times, however, commanders sought incremental gains as a
means to achieve victory. This incrementalist view sees war as
a slow, cumulative process and is best exemplified by the
grinding attrition tactics seen on the Western Front in World
War I. There the opponents were more or less evenly matched,
and their tactics resulted in indecisive action. In Vietnam,
where the opposing forces were quite dissimilar in their military capabilities, the incremental approach led to the U.S.’s
overreliance on firepower and body counts. This, in turn, led to
the conduct of military operations that were often irrelevant to
the outcome of the war, even though a comparison of casualty
ratios appeared favorable.
Therefore, the Marine Corps has embraced a more flexible,
imaginative, and effective way to wage war: maneuver warfare.
Marine success with this approach has been demonstrated in
places like Grenada and the Persian Gulf. In contrast to tactics
based on incremental attrition, tactics in maneuver warfare always aims at decisive action.
MCDP 1-3
This does not mean, however, that combat should be viewed
as a bloodless ballet of movement. Combat, especially at the
tactical level of war, will be characterized by tough, brutal, and
desperate engagements. We must remember that war is a violent clash of two opposing wills in which each side is trying to
wrest advantage from the other. Our future enemies may not
allow us to gain, maintain, or employ technological or numerical superiority. The future battle may be bloody and tough, and
that makes it vitally important that Marine leaders strive to develop tactical proficiency.
What do we mean by achieving a decision? Take a moment
to compare these two historical examples.
In late 1943, the Allies were searching for a way to alleviate
the stalemate in Italy. The campaign had stalled around the
Cassino front and resembled the trench warfare of World War
I. In order to keep the pressure on the Germans, bypass the
stubborn German defenses at Cassino, and capture Rome, a
bold operation was envisioned. The U.S. Army’s 3d Division
and the British Army’s 1st Division would make an amphibious landing at Anzio, about 35 miles south of Rome. (See
MCDP 1-3
Achieving a Decision
MCDP 1-3
The Allies achieved complete surprise by landing at Anzio
on January 22, 1944. Under the command of the U.S. Army’s
Major General Lucas, the Americans and British quickly
established a beachhead and rapidly advanced 3 miles inland
by midmorning against light German resistance. With the majority of their forces concentrated farther south around
Cassino, the Germans could not possibly reinforce the Anzio
beachhead until January 23d or 24th. If the Allies pressed their
advantage, the road to Rome lay virtually undefended. The seizure of Rome would have had the effect of isolating the German defenders in the south and firmly establishing Allied
control over Italy.
Yet General Lucas delayed. Concerned about being overextended and wanting to build up his logistics ashore, Lucas
failed to press his initial advantage of surprise and allowed the
Germans to reinforce the Anzio area. Not until January 29th
did Lucas feel strong enough to make an offensive bid, but by
that time it was too late. The Germans had arrived in force and
had seized the dominating high ground in the beachhead area.
Not only was the Allied offensive at Anzio stalled, but the Germans had seized the initiative and quickly threatened to drive
the Americans and British back into the sea (see figure).
As a result, the Allies did not complete the reduction of the
German defenses in southern Italy and capture Rome until
MCDP 1-3
Achieving a Decision
several months later. General Lucas lost a tremendous opportunity to exploit an initial success and gain a decisive result.3
MCDP 1-3
On August 2, 216 B.C., the Carthaginian general Hannibal
fought the Roman army under the command of Terentius Varro
near the city of Cannae in southern Italy. Hannibal based his
tactics on the specific characteristics of both forces and on the
aggressive personality of the Roman commander.
As dawn broke, Hannibal drew up his force of 50,000 veterans with his left flank anchored on the Aufidus river, secured
from envelopment by the more numerous Romans. His center
contained only a thin line of infantry. His main force was concentrated on the flanks. His left and right wings each contained
deep phalanxes of heavy infantry. Eight thousand cavalry tied
the left of his line to the river. Two thousand cavalry protected
his open right flank. Eight thousand men guarded his camp in
the rear.
Varro and more than 80,000 Romans accepted the challenge. Seeing the well-protected Carthaginian flanks, Varro
dismissed any attempt to envelop. He decided to crush his opponent by sheer weight of numbers. He placed 65,000 men in
his center; 2,400 cavalry on his right; and 4,800 cavalry on his
left and sent 11,000 men to attack the Carthaginian camp.
Following preliminary skirmishes, Hannibal moved his light
center line forward into a salient against the Roman center.
(See A in figure.) Then, his heavy cavalry on the left crushed
MCDP 1-3
Achieving a Decision
MCDP 1-3
the opposing Roman cavalry and swung completely around the
Roman rear to attack the Roman cavalry on the other flank.
The Roman cavalry fled the field.
The Carthaginian heavy cavalry then turned back to assault
the rear of the dense Roman infantry who had pressed back
Hannibal’s thin center line. At the same time, Hannibal
wheeled his right and left wings into the flanks of the Roman
center. The Romans were boxed in, unable to maneuver or use
their weapons effectively. (See B in figure on page 21.) Between 50,000 and 60,000 Romans died that day as Varro’s
army was destroyed.
What do these examples tell us about achieving a decision?
First, achieving a decision is important. An indecisive battle
wastes the lives of those who fight and die in it. It wastes the
efforts of those who survive as well. All the costs—the deaths,
the wounds, the sweat and effort, the equipment destroyed or
used up, the supplies expended—are suffered for little gain.
Such battles have no meaning except for the comparative
losses and perhaps an incremental gain for one side or the
MCDP 1-3
Achieving a Decision
Second, achieving a decision is not easy. History is litter- ed
with indecisive battles. Sometimes it was enemy skill and
determination that prevented even a victorious commander
from achieving the decision he sought. In other cases, commanders fought a battle without envisioning a larger result for
their actions. Sometimes, even with a vision of making the battle decisive, they could not achieve their goals due to the chaos
and friction that is the nature of war and makes decisive victory so difficult.
That leads to the third lesson our examples point out. To be
decisive, a battle or an engagement must lead to a result beyond itself. Within a battle, an action that is decisive must lead
directly to winning in the campaign or war as a whole. For the
battle to be decisive, it must lead directly to a larger success
in the war as a whole.
On the other hand, we must not seek decisiveness for its own
sake. We do not, after all, seek a decision if it is likely to be
against us. We seek to ensure—insofar as this is possible,
given the inherent uncertainties of war—that the battle will go
our way. We have stacked the deck in our favor before the
cards are laid on the table. Otherwise, to seek decisive battle is
an irresponsible gamble.
When we seek battle, we must seek victory: accomplishment of the assigned mission that leads to further significant
gains for the force as a whole. At Anzio, the Allied aim was to
break the stalemate in the south, opening up a southern front
MCDP 1-3
that would force Germany to move additional forces from the
defense of Normandy. This weakening of the Normandy defenses would support our planned invasion of France later that
same year. At Cannae, Carthage won one round in its long
contention with Rome for the domination of the Mediterranean.
These tactical battles were planned for their overall operational
and strategic effect. The consequences of a tactical engagement
should lead to achieving operational and strategic goals.
Once we understand what is meant by the term decisive and
why it is important to seek a decision, a question naturally
arises: How do we do it?
There is no easy answer to that question; each battle will
have its own unique answers. As with so much in warfare, it
depends on the situation. No formula, process, acronym, or
buzzword can provide the answer. Rather, the answer is in
military judgment, in the ability of the commander to understand the battlefield and act decisively. Military judgment is a
developed skill that is honed by the wisdom gained through experience. Combined with situational awareness, military judgment allows us to identify emerging patterns, discern critical
vulnerabilities, and concentrate combat power.
MCDP 1-3
Achieving a Decision
Understanding the Situation
The first requirement of a commander is to understand the
situation. The successful tactician studies the situation to
develop in his mind a clear picture of what is happening, how it
got that way, and how it might further develop. Consid- ering
the factors of mission, enemy, terrain and weather, troops and
support available-time available (METT-T), the commander
must think through all actions, determine the desired result, and
ascertain the means to achieve that result. Part of the commander’s thinking should also include assuming the role of the
enemy, considering what the enemy’s best course of action may
be, and deciding how to defeat it. Thinking through these elements helps the commander develop increased situational
Based on this understanding of the situation, the commander
can begin to form a mental image of how the battle might be
fought. Central to the commander’s thinking must be the question, “In this situation, what efforts will be decisive?” The
commander asks this question not just once, but repeatedly as
the battle progresses. The commander must also address possible outcomes and the new situations that will result from those
possibilities. As the situation changes, so will the solution and
the actions that derive from it.
For every situation, the leader must decide which of the
countless and often confusing pieces of information are important and reliable. The leader must determine what the enemy is
trying to do and how to counter his efforts. The leader’s skill is
MCDP 1-3
essentially one of pattern recognition, the ability, after seeing
only a few pieces of the puzzle, to fill in the rest of the picture
correctly. Pattern recognition is the ability to understand the
true significance and dynamics of a situation with limited information. Pattern recognition is a key skill for success on the
Tactics requires leaders to make decisions. A leader must
make decisions in a constantly changing environment of friction, uncertainty, and danger. Making effective decisions and
acting on those decisions faster than the enemy is a crucial element of Marine Corps tactics.
Sometimes there may be time to analyze situations deliberately and to consider multiple options. Comparing several options and selecting the best one is known as analytical
decisionmaking. When time allows a commander to apply analytical decisionmaking—usually before an engagement or battle
begins—the commander should make the most of it.
Once engaged, however, the commander finds time is short
and the need for speed paramount. In some cases, speeding up
the analytical decisionmaking process may be sufficient; however, in most cases intuitive decisionmaking is needed to generate and maintain tempo. Intuitive decisionmaking relies on a
commander’s intuitive ability to recognize the key elements of
a particular problem and arrive at the proper decision without
having to compare multiple options. Intuition is not some
MCDP 1-3
Achieving a Decision
mysterious quality. Rather, it is a developed skill, firmly
grounded in experience, and one that can be further developed
through education and practice. It is not without some risk,
however, and leaders should use the decisionmaking style that
works for them.
Leaders with strong situational awareness and broad experience can act quickly because they have an intuitive understanding of the situation, know what needs to be done, and know
what can be done. This insight has often been called coup
d’oeil (pronounced koo dwee), a French term meaning literally
“stroke of the eye.” It has also been called “tactical sense.”
Union Army Brigadier General John Buford’s approach to
the battle of Gettysburg offers a good example of understanding the battle so that it leads to a decision. Arriving at Gettysburg with a division of cavalry on the morning of June 30,
1863, Buford saw Confederate forces approaching from the
northwest. With the bulk of the Union forces still some miles
away, Buford was able to conceptualize the coming battle in
his mind. From his position on a hill outside town, he could see
that early seizure of the high ground west of Gettysburg was
critical to giving the Army of the Potomac time to mass its
forces. Occupation of this high ground would also preserve the
tactical advantage of the high ground to Buford’s rear for the
Union Army once they arrived on the battlefield. Buford also
knew that if the Confederates were allowed to mass their forces
MCDP 1-3
MCDP 1-3
Achieving a Decision
first around the high ground to the south and west, Lee would
have the advantage over the arriving Union forces. (See figure.)
Quickly spreading out one brigade west of town along
McPherson Ridge, General Buford settled in to defend Gettysburg until the arrival of Union reinforcements. On July 1st,
the following day, he held his ground against a division of Confederate infantry supported by artillery until General John Reynolds’ Second Corps came up and reinforced the line. General
Buford’s ability to foresee the coming battle, take quick action
in the disposition of his forces, and hold the high ground until
reinforced was one of the decisive actions that defeated the
Army of Northern Virginia at the battle of Get- tysburg.4
Buford’s actions at Gettysburg demonstrated an exceptional
ability to grasp the essence of a tactical situation through the
skills of pattern recognition and intuitive deci- sionmaking.
Acting Decisively
Our ability to understand the situation is useless if we are not
prepared to act decisively. When the opportunity arrives, we
must exploit it fully and aggressively, committing every ounce
of combat power we can muster and pushing ourselves to the
limits of exhaustion. The keys to this effort are identifying enemy critical vulnerabilities, shaping the operating area to our
advantage, designating a main effort to focus our combat
power, and acting in a bold and ruthless manner.
MCDP 1-3
Critical Vulnerabilities. For battlefield success, it is not enough
to generate superior combat power. We must focus that combat
power. We must concentrate our efforts on a critical vulnerability, that is, a vulnerability which permits us to destroy
some capability without which the enemy cannot function
Seeking the enemy’s vulnerabilities means striking with our
strength against his weakness (rather than his strength) and at a
time when the enemy is not prepared. This is where we can often cause the greatest damage at the lowest cost to ourselves.
In practical terms, this often means avoiding his front, where
his attention is focused, and striking his flanks and rear, where
he does not expect us.
Just because a target is vulnerable does not, however, mean
that it is worth attacking. We must direct our resources and
strike at those capabilities that are critical to the enemy’s ability to function—to defend, attack, or sustain himself, or to
command his forces. We must focus our efforts on those critical vulnerabilities that will bend the enemy to our will most
At the lower tactical level, this may mean using fire and maneuver to take out a machine gun position that is the backbone
of an enemy defense. It may mean using a gap in the enemy’s
fields of fire that allows us to get into the rear of his position. It
may mean exploiting the enemy’s lack of air defenses by calling in close air support. It may mean taking advantage of an
MCDP 1-3
Achieving a Decision
enemy’s lack of mobility by rapidly overrun- ning a key position faster than he can respond. It may mean interdicting enemy
resupply routes when his supplies are running short. It may
mean exploiting a lack of long-range weapons by employing
standoff tactics. Whatever we determine the enemy’s critical
vulnerability to be, we must be prepared to rapidly take advantage of it.
There is no formula for determining critical vulnerabilities.
Each situation is different. Critical vulnerabilities will rarely be
obvious. This is one of the things that make mastery of tactics
so difficult and one reason that so few actions achieve a decisive outcome. Identifying critical vulnerabilities is an important
prerequisite to achieving a decision.
Shaping the Operating Area. Once we have developed an under-
standing of the situation and have determined enemy critical
vulnerabilities to attack, we try to shape the operating area to
our advantage. Shaping includes both lethal and nonlethal activities such as planning fires to fix the enemy, using an axis of
advance to facilitate movement, designating objectives to focus
our combat power, or using deceptive measures to reinforce
enemy expectations. Shaping activities can make the enemy
vulnerable to attack, impede or divert his attempts to maneuver, facilitate the maneuver of friendly forces, and otherwise
dictate the time and place for decisive battle. Shaping forces
the enemy to adopt courses of action favorable to us. We attempt to shape events in a way that allows us several options,
so that by the time the moment for decisive action arrives, we
MCDP 1-3
have not restricted ourselves to only one course of action.
Through shaping we gain the initiative, preserve momentum,
and control the tempo of combat.
Main Effort. The main effort is a central maneuver warfare
concept: concentrating efforts on achieving objectives that lead
to victory. Of all the actions going on within our command, we
recognize one as the most critical to success at that moment.
The unit assigned responsibility for accomplishing this key
mission is designated as the main effort—the focal point upon
which converges the combat power of the force.
The main effort receives priority for support of any kind. It
must be clear to all other units in the command that they must
support that unit in the accomplishment of its mission. The
main effort becomes a harmonizing force for a subordinate’s
initiative. Faced with a decision, we ask ourselves: How can I
best support the main effort?
Some actions may support the main effort indirectly. For example, a commander may use other forces to deceive the enemy
as to the location of the main effort. Marine forces used this
concept extensively in conducting a series of combined arms
raids prior to the ground offensive in Operation Desert Storm.
The raids were to confuse the Iraqis as to the true position and
intention of Allied forces. “The raid force appeared in the middle of the night and fired from positions the enemy had every
right to believe were unoccupied.”5
MCDP 1-3
Achieving a Decision
Use of a main effort implies the use of economy of force.
This term does not mean that we use as little force as we think
we can get away with. Rather, it means that we must not fail to
make effective use of all of the assets available to us. Forces
not in a position to directly support the main effort should be
used to indirectly support it. Such forces might be used to distract the enemy or to tie down enemy forces that might otherwise reinforce the threatened point. Uncommitted forces can be
used in this effort by maneuvering them in feints and demonstrations that keep the enemy off balance.
While a commander always designates a main effort, it may
shift during the course of a battle as events unfold. Because
events and the enemy are unpredictable, few battles flow exactly as the commander has planned. As a result, the commander must make adjustments. One way is by redesignating
the main effort. For example, if Company A is desig- nated as
the main effort but runs into heavy enemy resistance while the
adjacent Company B makes a breakthrough that exploits a
critical vulnerability, the battalion commander may designate
Company B as the main effort. This new designation of Company B as the main effort must not, however, be merely nominal. It means that the combat power which was supporting
Company A now shifts to support Company B.
Identifying the main effort is the principal and most important answer to the question, “How do we achieve a decision?”
MCDP 1-3
Boldness and Ruthlessness. Forcing a successful decision re-
quires the commander to be bold and ruthless. Boldness refers
to daring and aggressiveness in behavior. It is one of the basic
requirements for achieving clear-cut outcomes: In order to try
for victory, we must dare to try for victory. We must have a
desire to “win big,” even if we realize that in many situations
the conditions for victory may not yet be present. Ruthlessness
refers to pursuing the established goal mercilessly and singlemindedly. This is doubly important once we gain an advantage.
Once we have an advantage, we should exploit it to the fullest.
We should not ease up, but instead increase the pressure. Victory in combat is rarely the product of the initial plan, but
rather of ruthlessly exploiting any advantage, no matter how
small, until it succeeds.
Boldness and ruthlessness must be accompanied by strong
leadership and tempered by sound judgment. Without these
qualities, boldness can become recklessness, and ruthlessness
can be distorted into cruelty.
As Marine leaders, whether of fire teams or of a Marine expeditionary force, we are responsible for achieving success. In
combat, the success we seek is victory—not merely a partial or
MCDP 1-3
Achieving a Decision
marginal outcome that forestalls the final reckoning, but a victory that settles the issue in our favor.
To be victorious, we must work ceaselessly in peacetime to
develop in ourselves a talent for military judgment—the ability
to understand a situation and act decisively. Military judgment
results from the wisdom gained from experience. It allows us to
identify patterns of activity and to concentrate our efforts
against a critical vulnerability that will bend the enemy to our
will. We must sharpen our ability to make decisions intuitively
based on our understanding of the situation.
Chapter 3
Gaining Advantage
“In war the power to use two fists is an inestimable asset. To
feint with one fist and strike with the other yields an advantage, but a still greater advantage lies in being able to interchange them—to convert the feint into the real blow if the
opponent uncovers himself.”1
—B. H. Liddell Hart
“The challenge is to identify and adopt a concept of warfighting consistent with our understanding of the nature and theory of war and the realities of the modern battlefield. What
exactly does this require? It requires a concept of warfighting
that will function effectively in an uncertain, chaotic, and
fluid environment—in fact, one that will exploit these conditions to advantage.”2
—FMFM 1, Warfighting
MCDP 1-3
Gaining Advantage
basic principle of martial arts is to use the opponent’s
strength and momentum against him to gain more leverage than one’s own muscles alone can generate, thereby gaining an advantage. The same concept applies to tactics. We
strive to gain an advantage over our adversary by exploiting
every aspect of a situation to help us to achieve victory, not by
overpowering him with our own strength. This chapter will discuss several different ways of generating leverage to gain advantage over the enemy.
Consider the American Indian ambush technique. A small
number of warriors would draw a superior force of pursuing
cavalry into a canyon or similar close terrain. There a larger
force of warriors, lying in wait, would quickly surround and
ambush the soldiers, who thought they had been pursuing a retreating enemy. By exploiting the cavalry’s initial advantages
of strength and momentum, the American Indians were able to
seize the initiative and gain the advantage through the use of
this classic ambush method.
The use of combined arms is a key means of gaining advantage. It is based on the idea of presenting the enemy not merely
with a problem, but with a dilemma—a no-win sit-uation. We
combine supporting arms, organic fires, and maneuver in such
MCDP 1-3
a way that any action the enemy takes to avoid one threat
makes him more vulnerable to another.3 For example, an entrenched enemy should discover that if he stays hunkered down
in fighting holes, Marine artillery and air will blast him out. If
he comes out to attack, Marine infantry will cut him down. If
he tries to retreat, Marine armor and airpower will pursue him
to his destruction. That is combined arms.
A good example of the use of combined arms at the squad
level would be the squad leader positioning squad automatic
weapons and grenade launchers to provide support by fire
while infantrymen with rifles assault the position. The firepower from the automatic weapons keeps the enemy in their
fighting holes while grenades make those holes untenable.
These supporting fires keep the enemy from reacting effectively to our maneuvering infantry force. The enemy forces are
placed in a no-win situation.
Modern tactics is combined arms tactics. That is, it combines the effects of various arms—infantry, armor, artillery,
and aviation—to achieve the greatest possible effect against the
enemy. Artillery and infantry, for example, are normally employed together because of their mutually reinforcing capabilities—the infantry provides close support to the artillery,
protecting them from dismounted threats, while the artillery
provides the infantry with timely, close, accurate, and continuous fire support. The strengths of the arms complement and reinforce each other. At the same time, the weaknesses and
MCDP 1-3
Gaining Advantage
vulnerabilities of each arm are protected or offset by the capabilities of the other.
While a division commander in 1941, General Patton had
the following comments regarding combined arms:
There is still a tendency in each separate unit . . . to be a onehanded puncher. By that I mean that the rifleman wants to
shoot, the tanker to charge, the artilleryman to fire . . . . That
is not the way to win battles. If the band played a piece first
with the piccolo, then with the brass horn, then with the clarinet, and then with the trumpet, there would be a hell of a lot
of noise but no music. To get harmony in music each instrument must support the others. To get harmony in battle, each
weap- on must support the other. Team play wins.4
The Marine air-ground task force is a perfect example of a
balanced combined arms team. Combined arms tactics is standard practice and second nature for all Marines.
Maneuver provides us a means to gain an advantage over the
enemy. In too many battles, one or both sides have sought to
gain advantage in combat through firepower and attrition. In
World War I, one side would rush across no-man’s-land under
murderous fire and attempt to push an opponent off desired
MCDP 1-3
terrain. If the attack succeeded—and few did—the evicted
forces counterattacked in the same manner, usually reoccupying the same terrain they had before. These battles were firepower and attrition contests, and the advantage lay with the
side that had the most personnel and equipment to expend. The
cost in casualties and equipment was high and often produced
no decisive results. We want to avoid this type of engagement.
Traditionally, maneuver has meant moving in a way that
gains positional advantage. For example, we may maneuver by
enveloping an exposed enemy flank or by denying the enemy
terrain critical to his goals. We may maneuver by threatening
the enemy’s lines of communications and forcing him to withdraw. We may maneuver by seizing a position which allows us
to bring effective fire to bear against the enemy but which protects us against enemy fires. We may maneuver in other dimensions as well. For instance, we may also maneuver in time by
increasing relative speed and operating at a faster tempo than
the enemy. Normally we maneuver both in time and space to
gain advantage and, ultimately, victory at the least possible
The use of the environment offers tremendous opportunities to
gain advantage over the enemy. We must understand the characteristics of any environment where we may have to operate:
MCDP 1-3
Gaining Advantage
jungle, desert, mountain, arctic, riverine, or urban. More importantly, we must understand how the effects of terrain,
weather, and periods of darkness or reduced visibility impact
on our own and our adversary’s ability to fight.
Our objective is to employ tactics that makes terrain an advantage to us and a disadvantage to our opponent. Terrain impacts
on our maneuver and influences our tactical disposi- tions. We
must understand terrain and comprehend its effects, as it may
limit our movement, reduce our visibility, or restrict our fires.
We must understand what effects it has on the enemy and on
his abilities to detect or engage us. We must be aware that the
enemy also seeks advantage from terrain. We must understand
that terrain shapes the enemy’s maneuver and dispositions as
well as our own.
Lieutenant Harrol Kiser of the 1st Battalion, 7th Marine
Regiment, knew how to use terrain to gain an advantage. In
November 1950, his company was ordered to seize a key piece
of terrain at Toktong Pass during the march out of the Chosin
Reservoir area. Lieutenant Kiser had only 20 Marines left in
his platoon, and the pass was heavily defended by the Chinese.
Using a flanking ridgeline to conceal his approach, Lieutenant
Kiser skillfully enveloped the enemy from the rear and quickly
routed the Chinese out of their well-entrenched position.5 Today, as in Korea, the intelligent use of terrain has become a
standard practice for Marines.
MCDP 1-3
Adverse weather—cold, heat, rain—impedes combat operations. The military unit that is best prepared to operate in these
conditions will gain an advantage over its opponent. During the
breakout from Chosin Reservoir in November 1950, Marines
demonstrated time and time again the ability to use harsh
weather to their advantage over a determined enemy. The assault of Able Company, 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, on
Hill 1081 in a blinding snowstorm is such an example. Despite
visibility of only 25 yards, the company was able to coordinate
a combined arms attack and envelop this key piece of terrain
that blocked the breakout of the 1st Marine Regiment. Using a
snowstorm to mask its movement, Able Company surprised
and annihilated the Chinese defenders, thereby opening a route
for the rest of the division.6
If we are to use weather to our advantage, we must train and
prepare rigorously to operate in all climatic conditions. We
must be able to operate our equipment and employ our weapons effectively in hot, cold, or wet environments—literally in
every clime and place.
Periods of Darkness or Reduced Visibility
Units that can operate effectively during hours of darkness or
periods of reduced visibility often gain significant advantage
over their opponent. Reduced visibility can make the simplest
of tasks difficult to accomplish. This obvious disadvantage can
be turned on its head and used to our advantage by a
MCDP 1-3
Gaining Advantage
commander whose forces are trained, equipped, able, and willing to operate at night. Night operations can produce great
gains against a force that cannot or will not operate at night.
Operating during periods of reduced visibility creates tempo by
adding another 10 to 12 hours to the day for fighting. The psychological impact of night fighting is also great and can produce significant rewards.
A good example of the tactical impact of night attacks is
found in the battle for Okinawa during World War II. Marine
forces were essentially stalemated by the presence of a strong
Japanese defensive line in the coral ridges of southern Okinawa. After days of ineffective attacks by the 7th Marine Regiment, the regimental commander elected to attack under cover
of darkness. At 0330 on 12 June 1945, the 1st and 2d Battalions of the 7th Marines advanced, using a road that intersected
the ridge as a guide. Colonel Edward W. Snedecker, Commanding Officer of the 7th Marines at the time, noted:
. . . two companies, one from each [of] the 1st and 2d Battalions, got across the valley during the night into position [on
the ridge]. Early in the morning when the Japanese came out
to cook breakfast, they found a little bit of a surprise . . . [for]
The Japanese defenders were not used to U.S. forces attacking at night. The use of darkness allowed Marines to occupy
positions along the crest of Kunishi Ridge literally without firing a shot. From these positions, the Marines dislodged the
MCDP 1-3
enemy from their entrenched positions and moved onward until
the Japanese defenders were annihilated.8
Complementary forces—the idea of fix-and-flank—are an important way of gaining advantage. The idea behind
complementary forces is to use our forces as a nutcracker. We
seek to crush the enemy between two or more actions. Consider
the case of an enemy rifleman firing from behind a tree. If one
Marine fires from the front, the enemy rifleman is protected by
the tree. If the Marine maneuvers and attempts to fire from behind, the enemy rifleman merely moves to the other side of the
tree to maintain his protection. However, two Marines can
place our opponent in a dilemma. One can fire from the front
while the other sneaks around and fires at the enemy from the
flank or rear. The opponent is now vulnerable to one or the
other of the two Marines. He cannot use the tree for protection
against both.
The same idea applies in air-to-air tactics. Upon detecting
enemy aircraft, a flight of fighters splits into two or more elements beyond air-to-air missile range. They approach the enemy aircraft from multiple directions and varying altitudes. No
matter how the enemy aircraft moves—dives, climbs, turns, or
twists—it is exposed.
MCDP 1-3
Gaining Advantage
Sun Tzu described this concept as the cheng and the ch’i.9
The cheng is the more direct, obvious action. It fixes the enemy. The ch’i is the unexpected or extraordinary action. It is
the bid for a decision, or, as we call it today, the main effort.
These two actions work together against the enemy. The two
actions are inseparable and can be interchangeable in battle;
the cheng may become the ch’i. The concept is basic, but it can
be implemented in a variety of combinations limited only by
our imagination.
Achieving surprise can greatly increase leverage. In fact, surprise can often prove decisive. We try to achieve surprise
through deception, stealth, and ambiguity.
“War is based on deception,”10 stated Sun Tzu. We use deception to mislead our opponents with regard to our real intentions and capabilities. By employing deception, we try to cause
our opponents to act in ways that will eventually prove prejudicial for them. We may use deception to mislead the enemy as to
the time and location of our pending attack. We may use deception to create the impression that our forces are larger than
they really are. We hope the enemy will realize this deception
only when it is too late for them to react.
MCDP 1-3
Marines have often relied on deception to mislead the enemy
in regard to the location of amphibious landings. Marines used
deception to create the illusion of force where there was none in
Operation Desert Storm. Lieutenant General Boomer stated the
situation which necessitated an extensive deception operation:
“We’re taking on 11 Iraqi divisions with two Marine divisions.
Our force ratios are horrible. We don’t want him to know that.
. . .”11 The Marines created Task Force Troy: 460 Marines
imitated the activities of a 16,000-man division using loudspeakers, dummy tanks and artillery, and helicopters conducting simulated resupply.
Surprise can be generated through stealth. Stealth is used to
advantage when maneuvering against an enemy. It provides
less chance of detection by the enemy, leaving him vulnerable
to surprise action for which he may be unprepared. Marines
may also employ stealth by lying in wait for an approaching
enemy—an ambush. The ambush is perhaps the most effective
means of surprising opponents, especially at the lower tactical
level where surprise through stealth is easiest to achieve.
We can also achieve surprise through ambiguity. It is usually difficult to conceal all our movements from the enemy, but
we can sometimes confuse him as to the meaning of what he
sees. Sun Tzu said:
The enemy must not know where I intend to give battle. For if
he does not know where I intend to give battle he must prepare in a great many places. And when he prepares in a great
MCDP 1-3
Gaining Advantage
many places, those I have to fight in any one place will be
Ambiguity was central to the tactics of the World War II
German blitzkrieg. An attack in blitzkrieg involved multiple
thrusts with reinforcements following whichever thrusts were
most successful. The multitude of thrusts created paralyzing
uncertainty because the opponent could not determine which
constituted the real attack. There was nothing secret about the
German attack, but it was ambiguous on a massive scale.
Modern tactics is based not on pushing the enemy, but on trapping him—another excellent way of gaining advantage. Trapping is the desired result of the application of combined arms,
fire and maneuver, or complementary forces tactics.
Why do we want to trap the enemy instead of just push him?
A pushing contest is seldom decisive. The side that is pushed
out comes back the next day still full of fight. We have to fight
him again and again. Unfortunately, in Vietnam, many of our
battles were pushing battles. We were always able to push the
enemy off the ground he held and to inflict casualties on him.
He just withdrew, regrouped, replaced his losses, and came
MCDP 1-3
back to fight us again. The result was a series of indecisive actions and a seemingly endless war.
However, if we can trap our enemy, we have a better opportunity to win decisively. Many of history’s decisive battles
have been trapping actions. Recall how the Roman legions
were trapped at Cannae or the German divisions at Stalingrad?
Trapping gains advantage by disrupting the enemy’s mental
process while he attempts to think through the dilemma we
have placed him in. Trapping allows us to gain and maintain
the initiative as the enemy is forced to react to our actions. It
can also temporarily undermine the enemy’s will to resist when
he is at his weakest—while we continue to press the attack and
our initiative.
A good example of trapping from the Vietnam conflict occurred during Operation Dewey Canyon. (See figure.) North
Vietnamese activity along the Laotian-South Vietnamese border increased dramatically in early January 1969. Large enemy
convoys, including armored vehicles, regularly traveled from
Laos into South Vietnam, threatening friendly units. Colonel
Robert H. Barrow and his 9th Marines responded with Operation Dewey Canyon.
The three battalions of the 9th Regiment crossed the Da
Krong River on February 11th and 12th. The Third and First
Battalions moved south-southeast through the mountainous
terrain toward Laos. Second Battalion, to the west, swung
south-southwest, turning east astride the south Vietnam-Laos
MCDP 1-3
Gaining Advantage
border. The North Vietnamese forces moving along Route 922
from Laos into the A Shau Valley were trapped between the
three battalions. The North Vietnamese were mauled as a
MCDP 1-3
result. Their equipment losses were staggering. More importantly, Operation Dewey Canyon destroyed a North Vietnamese base area and so disrupted their logistics that it forced
them to abandon their planned spring offensive in I Corps’
Perhaps the most common tactical tool for gaining advantage is
the ambush. All Marines are familiar with an ambush as a type
of combat patrol.14 In maneuver warfare, ambush takes on a
much broader meaning, and the development of the ambush
mentality is integral to maneuver warfare tactics.
The ambush mentality is probably not new to most of us.
We may have employed the ambush mentality in sports. In
football, the trap block is an ambush. A player pulls an offensive lineman off the line, leaving a hole. When a defender
comes through the hole, another lineman suddenly blocks him
from the side, usually knocking him down. The players have
blind-sided him. That is the ambush mentality.
In basketball, setting up a pick is an ambush. As one teammate drives to the basket, another steps into the defender’s path
from behind, blocks the path, stops the defense, and
MCDP 1-3
Gaining Advantage
momentarily clears the lane to the basket for the other teammate. Again, that is the ambush mentality.
In combat, we move our reinforced squad into position along
a well-traveled trail. We position flank security to protect ourselves and give identification and warning of enemy movements
down the trail. We position our weapons so as to concentrate
our fires into a “kill zone” and to seal off exits, forcing the enemy to remain subject to our fires. The squad waits in position
until signaled when they immediately respond with concentrated, sustained fires on enemy forces trapped in the kill zone.
The enemy, surprised into inaction, unsure of what to do or
where to move, is annihilated. Fires are maintained until all the
enemy are killed or until signaled to stop. That is the ambush
The ambush mentality tries to turn every situation into an
ambush. In this broader context, an ambush has several distinct
First, in an ambush we try to surprise the enemy. Think of a
patrol that we ambush. Our enemies are walking through the
woods when suddenly, out of nowhere, they are under fire from
multiple directions. They are taking heavy casualties. The psychological impact of surprise may paralyze their thoughts and
actions, leaving them incapable of reacting effectively. To have
an ambush mentality means we always try to surprise the enemy, to do the unexpected. Surprise is the rule rather than the
MCDP 1-3
Second, we want to draw our enemy unknowingly into a
trap. This will often involve deceiving him. We make one
course of action appear inviting. When he takes that course of
action, we are waiting for him.
Third, an ambush is invisible. If the ambush is not invisible,
it ceases to be an ambush and instead becomes a target for the
enemy. Whether we are defending or attacking, the enemy must
not detect us until it is too late for him to react. Surprise often
depends upon invisibility. That invisibility may be provided
through stealth in movement or in focusing the enemy’s attention elsewhere to allow our forces to maneuver without
The reverse slope defense is an example of using invisibility
to spring an ambush. The enemy does not know we are there
until he comes over the crest of a hill and is hit by our fires.
His vehicles are hit on their soft underbellies. His troops are
fully exposed to our weapons. Because he could not see us until the last moment, he could not call in artillery fire on our position. The reverse slope not only protects us from his direct
fire; it protects us from his observation and thus his indirect
fire. That is part of the ambush mentality: Do not let yourself
be seen.
Fourth, in an ambush we want to shock the enemy. Instead
of taking him under fire gradually with a few weapons at long
range, we wait until he is within easy range of every weapon.
We then open up suddenly, all at once, with everything we
MCDP 1-3
Gaining Advantage
have. He is paralyzed by the shock. He cannot react. Everything was going fine, and suddenly he is in a firestorm with
people falling all around him. Often he will panic, making his
problem worse as he reacts rather than acts.
Combined arms may be used to ambush the enemy. Artillery
raids that reach deeper into his vital areas than expected can
produce that same desired shock effect as a ground-based ambush. We place him in a dilemma as he attempts to move from
the effects of artillery and goes right into an attack by air.
Finally, in the ambush mentality, we always focus on the
enemy. The purpose of an ambush is not to hold a piece of terrain. It is to destroy the enemy. We use terrain to effect the ambush, but terrain itself is not what we are fighting for.
Fighting asymmetrically means gaining advantage through imbalance, applying strength against an enemy weakness. Fighting asymmetrically means using dissimilar techniques and
capabilities to maximize our own strengths while exploiting enemy weaknesses. Fighting asymmetrically means fighting the
enemy on our terms rather than on his. By fighting asymmetrically, we do not have to be numerically superior to defeat the
enemy. We only have to be able to exploit his vulnerabilities.
MCDP 1-3
For example, using tanks to fight enemy tanks, infantry to fight
enemy infantry, and air to fight enemy air is symmetrical. Using attack helicopters to fight enemy tanks and close air support against enemy infantry are examples of fighting
asymmetrically. In these examples, we gain the advantage of
the greater speed and mobility of the aircraft relative to the enemy. Ambushing tanks with attack helicopters in terrain which
hampers tank maneuver provides even more effect and generates even more advantage.
Combat is a test of wills where the object is to win. One way to
win is to gain and exploit every possible advantage. This
means using maneuver and surprise whenever possible. It
means employing complementary forces and combined arms. It
means exploiting the terrain, weather, and times of darkness to
our advantage. It means trapping our enemy by ambush or by
some other means. It means fighting asym- metrically to gain
added advantage. This is what Sun Tzu meant when he wrote:
“Therefore a skilled commander seeks victory from the situation and does not demand it of his subordinates.”15
Chapter 4
Being Faster
“Hit quickly, hit hard and keep right on hitting. Give the enemy no rest, no opportunity to consolidate his forces and hit
back at you.”1
—Holland M. Smith
“For the infantryman to be truly effective . . . he will have to
be as light of foot as he is quick of thought. . . . Mobility is
needed most of all in the clash of arms. Swift and agile movement plus rapidity and intelligent tactical flexibility are its
true essentials.”2
—John A. English
MCDP 1-3
Being Faster
sually, to think of weapons means to think of a personal
rifle or pistol; the unit’s machine guns and mortars; or
the aircraft’s missiles, bombs, or guns. A logistician may realize that weapons include trucks, bulldozers, and excavators.
Some Marines overlook one of their most powerful weapons,
one that creates advantage for infantrymen, aviators, and logisticians equally. That weapon is speed.
How is speed a weapon? Think of sports again: The breakaway
in hockey uses speed as a weapon. By rapidly passing the puck
down the ice, one team denies the other the chance to set up a
defense. Speed circumvents their opponent’s ability to respond
in an organized manner. The fastbreak in basketball seeks the
same result. In two or three passes, the ball is downcourt and
the basket scored, all before the opposition can re- act.
The results of speed often reach beyond the immediate goal.
How many times have we seen a team score on a fastbreak,
steal the ball as it comes inbounds, and immediately score
again, and even a third time? Unable to regain their composure,
the victims of the fastbreak become the victims of a rally. The
victims lose confidence. Passes go astray; signals become
crossed; tempers flare; arguments ensue. The rally becomes a
MCDP 1-3
rout. The beleaguered players see certain defeat. They virtually
give up while still on the court.
The same thing can happen in combat. The battalion or
fighter aircraft or logistics train that can consistently move and
act faster than its enemy has a powerful advantage.
In June of 1943, during the battle of Saipan, the aggressive,
hard-hitting tactics of General Holland Smith proved to be singularly successful in defeating the Japanese defenders. General
Smith’s tactical plan for Saipan called for applying “unremitting pressure on the enemy and . . . bypassing strong points of
resistance for mopping up by reserve elements in order to press
the attack to better ground.”3 Long indoctrinated with the value
of speed in amphibious operations, General Smith’s bypassing
tactics placed the Japanese remaining in their fixed defenses at
an extreme tactical disadvantage. These tactics proved very effective in isolating and reducing the Japanese defense. General
Smith’s use of speed served as a force multiplier, and it also
reduced Marine casualties.
The British Royal Air Force bested the Germans during the
Battle of Britain in World War II in part because they were
able to speedily recover their downed pilots, return them to
base, place them in new aircraft, and have them fighting again
in the afternoon. Downed German pilots were less easily recovered, and the Luftwaffe had fewer of the long-range air- craft
required for replacement. Eventually, pilot and aircraft losses
forced the Germans to end daylight bombing and resort strictly
to relatively ineffective night attacks.
MCDP 1-3
Being Faster
Great leaders have repeatedly stated the value of speed in
combat. Napoleon said, “I may lose a battle, but I shall never
lose a minute.”4 Nathan Bedford Forrest told the secret of his
many victories: “Get there first with the most men.”5 General
Patton said in 1943, “When the great day of battle comes remember your training and remember above all else that speed
and violence of attack are the sure road to success.”6 History’s
great commanders differed in many ways, but one thing they
shared was a sense of the importance of speed.
In Operation Urgent Fury in 1983, the Marines of Battalion
Landing Team 2/8, moved fast, as their commander, Lieutenant Colonel Ray Smith, had trained them to do. When they
captured the operations officer of the Grenadian army, he said
to them, “You appeared so swiftly in so many places where we
didn’t expect you that it was clear that resistance was hopeless,
so I recommended to my superiors that we lay down our arms
and go into hiding.”7 That is what speed used as a weapon can
do for you.
“What is speed?” would seem to have a simple answer: speed
is going fast. This is speed as we think of it when driving a
car—more miles per hour.
MCDP 1-3
That is part of the answer in tactics as well. We use speed to
gain the initiative and advantage over the enemy. For example,
when a tank battalion attacks, it goes over the ground as fast as
it can. General Balck was asked whether the Russian tanks
ever used terrain in their attacks against him in World War II.
He replied that they had used terrain on occasion, but that they
more often used speed. The questioner followed up: “Which
was harder to defend against?” Balck answered, “Speed.”8
Physical speed, moving more miles per hour, is a powerful
weapon in itself. On our approach to the enemy, speed in
movement reduces his reaction time. When we are going
through him or around him, it changes the situation faster than
he can react. Once we are past him, it makes his reaction
irrelevant. In all three cases, speed impacts on the enemy, especially his mind, causing fear, indecision, and helplessness. Remember, attacking the enemy’s mind is a central tenet of
maneuver warfare.
In a military sense, there is more to speed than simply going
fast, and there is a vital difference between acting rapidly and
acting recklessly. With time we must always consider the
closely related factor of timing. Speed and time are closely related. In fact, speed is defined in terms of time: miles or
MCDP 1-3
Being Faster
kilometers per hour. In tactics, what this means is that time is
always of the utmost importance. Time that cannot be spent in
action must be spent thinking about how to act effectively.
Even when we are engaged with the enemy, we are not always moving fast. Some of the time we are not moving at all.
Nonetheless, every moment is still of the utmost importance
even when we are sitting still. A battalion staff that takes a day
to plan an action is obviously slower than one that takes an
hour. A tank battalion that takes 3 hours to refuel is slower
than one that takes 2 hours, just as one that must refuel every
hundred miles is slower than one that must refuel every two
hundred. A company that sits down to eat once it has taken its
objective is slower than one that immediately presses on into
the enemy’s depth. A fighter squadron that can fly only three
sorties per aircraft per day is slower, in terms of effect on the
enemy, than one that flies six. A maintenance repair team that
takes 2 days to fix a damaged vehicle and get it back into action is slower, in terms of effect on the enemy, than one that
can do it overnight.
Making maximum use of every hour and every minute is as
important to speed in combat as simply going fast when we are
moving. It is important to every member of a military force
whether serving on staffs or in units—aviation, combat service
support, ground combat, everyone. A good tactician has a constant sense of urgency. We feel guilty if we are idle. We never
waste time, and we are never content with the pace at which
events are happening. We are always saying to ourselves and
MCDP 1-3
to others, “Faster! Faster!” We know that if speed is a weapon,
so is time.
We employ speed and use time to create tempo. Tempo is not
merely a matter of acting fastest or at the earliest opportunity.
It is also a matter of timing—acting at the right time.
Timing requires an appreciation for the rhythm of combat so
we can exploit that rhythm to our advantage. It is physically
impossible to operate always at peak tempo. Even though we
can extend operating cycles through the economical use of resources, we cannot operate at top speed indefinitely. We must
rest our people and replenish our supplies. The test of skill is to
be able to generate and maintain a fast pace when the situation
calls for it and to recover when it will not hurt us.
Timing means knowing when to act and, equally important,
when not to act. Although speed is an important tactical
weapon, there are situations in which it is better to bide our
time. If our concept of operations involves a diversion, we need
to allow time for the diversion to take effect. If we have laid an
ambush for the enemy, we need to give the enemy time to fall
fully into the trap. If a situation is still forming, we may want
MCDP 1-3
Being Faster
to develop it further before we commit to a course of action.
For example, an error commonly made by defenders is counterattacking too soon so that the enemy is merely pushed back
rather than cut off, encircled, and destroyed. Decisive action is
our goal, and it must be timed to occur at the proper moment.
There are times to act, and there are other times to set the stage
and wait.
A benefit from a decision not to act is that it saves precious
resources and energy for later commitment. Some leaders dissipate their units’ energy on constant, unprioritized activity. Not
all activities support the mission. A unit’s energy is not easily
replenished and should be treated as a precious resource to be
expended only towards decisive goals.
Going fast and making efficient use of time are both parts of
the answer to the question, “What is speed?” However, something else must be considered: the enemy. As with all things in
war, speed is relative. Speed is meaningful militarily only if we
are acting faster than the enemy. We can do that either by
slowing the enemy or by increasing our own speed.
MCDP 1-3
In the battle for the Falkland Islands in 1982, the British
Army moved slowly. The terrain was difficult, the weather was
abominable, and much of the material had to be moved on
men’s backs, all of which slowed down the British. Nevertheless, the British still had the advantage in speed because they
moved faster than the Argentines who, once they had made
their initial dispositions, essentially did not move. That superiority in relative speed allowed the British to maintain the initiative throughout the campaign.
To be consistent, superiority in relative speed must continue
over time. It is not enough to move faster than the enemy only
now and then because when we are not moving faster, the advantage, the initiative, passes to him. Most forces can manage
an intermittent burst of speed but must then halt for a considerable period to recover between bursts. During that halt, they
are likely to lose their advantage. We realize that we cannot
operate at full speed indefinitely, and the challenge is to be
consistently faster than the enemy.
MCDP 1-3
Being Faster
One way to sustain speed is to use the effects of combined
arms. When the infantry or mounted troops must break contact
temporarily to maneuver, resupply, or recover, air or artillery
can keep the pressure on. Maneuver cannot be sus- tained indefinitely, but the momentum can be maintained through skillful planning of combined arms effects, keeping the enemy
always at a disadvantage.
Here the speed of logistics becomes critical. Although physical exhaustion is a factor, halts often are driven by logistics:
ground or aviation units must stop for equipment repair, maintenance, and resupply. Supporting forces can minimize loss of
speed if they can deliver the supplies and perform the maintenance quickly. Thus, they enable combat units to move before
the enemy gains the initiative.
In order to act consistently faster than the enemy, it is necessary to do more than move quickly. It is also necessary to make
rapid transitions from one action to another. While there are
many types of transitions in combat, the important thing to remember is that transitions produce friction. Reduction of friction minimizes the loss of tempo that the friction generates at
the point of transition. A unit that can make transitions faster
and more smoothly than another can be said to have greater
relative speed.
MCDP 1-3
In the 18th century, the importance of fast transitions (sometimes called agility) was displayed when shifting from column
formation into line. If an army could not rapidly de- ploy into
line and consequently was engaged while still in column, it was
often beaten. Much drill was devoted to practicing this difficult
transition so that it could be accomplished rapidly in combat.
Today we develop proficiencies in battle drills and immediateaction drills that allow units to rapidly transition from one formation to another without pausing.
It is important to be able to effect rapid changes in organization as well. Being quick to effect required changes in task organization based on a rapidly changing battle situation
increases agility and decreases reaction times. Battle drills and
rehearsals can be conducted to smooth out procedures for
changing organization rapidly. The faster these transitions can
be made, the more effective the force becomes.
The place in time and space where transitions occur can be
called a friction point. Friction points commonly encountered
in tactics include movement from an assembly area to attack;
from patrol movement formation to ambush posture; from defensive posture to attack; from one maneuver to another, and
so forth. The transition involves simply positional changes and
drills, but also changes of attitude in the minds of Marines. We
must shift our mental focus from one movement to another.
A modern example of the importance of fast transitions
comes from aerial combat. In the Korean War, American
MCDP 1-3
Being Faster
aviators achieved a high kill ratio of about 10:1 over their
North Korean and Chinese opponents. At first glance, this is
somewhat surprising. The main enemy fighter, the MiG-15,
was superior to the American F-86 in a number of key respects. It could climb and accelerate faster, and it had a better
sustained turn rate. The F-86, however, was superior to the
MiG in two critical, though less obvious, respects. First, because it had high-powered hydraulic controls, the F-86 could
shift from one maneuver to another faster than the MiG. Second, because of its bubble canopy, the F-86 pilot had better
visibility. The F-86’s better field of view provided better situational awareness and also contributed to fast transitions because it allowed its pilot to understand changing situations
more quickly.
American pilots developed new tactics based on these two
advantages. When they engaged the MiGs, they sought to put
them through a series of maneuvers. The F-86’s faster transitions between maneuvers gave it a time advantage that the pilot
transformed into a position advantage. Often, when the MiG
pilots realized what was happening, they panicked—and
thereby made the American pilot’s job all the easier.
These tactics illustrate the way fast transitions contribute to
overall speed and to a time advantage. The importance of time
and speed in a broader sense has been brought out in the work
of John Boyd. A former colonel in the U.S. Air Force, Boyd
studied a wide variety of historic battles, campaigns, and wars.
He noted that where numerically inferior forces had defeated
MCDP 1-3
their opponents, they often did so by presenting the other side
with a sudden, unexpected change or a series of changes. The
superior forces fell victim because they could not adjust to the
changes in a timely manner. Generally, defeat came at relatively small cost to the victor.9
This research led to the Boyd theory, which states that conflict may be viewed as time-competitive cycles of observation-orientation-decision-action (OODA). First, each party to
a conflict enters the fray by observing himself, his surroundings, his enemy. In tactics, this equates to adoption of a hunting
instinct: searching; actively looking; hunting for the enemy;
and seeing what he is doing or is about to do. It also includes
anticipating the enemy’s next moves—getting inside his mind.
Second, based upon those observations, the combatant orients to the situation, that is, produces a mental image of the
situation and gains situational awareness. This awareness becomes the foundation on which to erect a plan. Generally, the
better the orientation, the better the plan.
Next, based upon this orientation, the combatant decides
upon a course of action. The decision is developed into a plan
that can be disseminated among subordinates for their planning
and execution.
Last, the combatant acts, or puts the decision into effect. In
tactics this is the execution phase where the decision, or plan,
is implemented. Since this action has changed the situation, the
MCDP 1-3
Being Faster
combatant again observes, beginning the cycle anew. Boyd’s
cycle is also known as the OODA loop.
The Boyd theory helps to define the word “maneuver.” It
means being consistently faster than our opponent. As our enemy observes and orients on our initial action, we must be observing, orienting, deciding, and acting upon our second action.
As we enact our third, fourth, and fifth move, the time gap between our actions and our enemy’s reactions increasingly widens. Our enemy falls behind in a panicked game of catch up.
As he tries to respond to our penetration, we attack his reserves
and his command and control. As he counterattacks with his
mobile reserve, we bypass with helicopterborne forces. Everything he does is too late.
Thus, the military answer to the question “What is speed?”
is not simple. Nonetheless, it is central to every aspect of tactics. As General George Patton said, “In small operations, as in
large, speed is the essential element of success.”10
We should also exercise caution so as not to confuse speed
with haste. General Patton made this observation:
Haste and Speed: There is a great difference between these
two words. Haste exists when troops are committed without
proper reconnaissance, without the arrangement for proper
supporting fire, and before every available man has been
brought up. The result of such an attack will be to get the
troops into action early, but to complete the action very
MCDP 1-3
Speed is acquired by making the necessary reconnaissance,
providing the proper artillery [support], . . . bringing up every
[available] man, and then launching the attack with a predetermined plan so that the time under fire will be reduced to
the minimum.11
Now we see clearly the importance of speed. We want to be
fast. How do we do it?
We start by recognizing the importance of time. As leaders
of Marines, we have a responsibility to make things happen
fast. Our sense of the importance of time, of urgency, must direct our actions. We must work to create and build that sense
within ourselves.
Once we have it, there are a number of things we can do to
increase speed. First, we can keep everything simple. Simplicity promotes speed; complexity slows things down. Simplicity
should be central to our plans, our staffs (large staffs may be
one of war’s greatest consumers of time), our command and
control, and our own actions.
Second, speed is increased through decentralization. Decentralization is an important concept in the execution of maneuver warfare. How do we achieve decentralization, while still
MCDP 1-3
Being Faster
retaining control? We use two main tools that provide the required control of the effort and the decentralization of its execution. These tools are mission tactics and commander’s intent.
Mission tactics is the assignment of a mission to a subordinate without specifying how the mission must be accomplished.
It is a key tenet of maneuver warfare. In mission tactics, the
higher commander describes the mission and explains its purpose. The subordinate commander determines the tactics
needed to accomplish the task based on the mission and the
higher commander’s intent. In this way, each leader can act
quickly as the situation changes without passing information
up the chain of command and waiting for orders to come back
down. Speed is greatly increased by this decentralization process. According to John A. English in his work On Infantry, decentralization has been one of the most significant features of
modern war. English wrote: “In the confused and often chaotic
battlefield environment of today, only the smallest groups are
likely to keep together, particularly during critical moments.”12
In such circumstances, individuals rally around their leader
who, armed with knowledge of the purpose or intent behind
their task, can lead them toward success.
The commander’s intent provides the overall purpose for
accomplishing the task assigned through mission tactics. Although the situation may change, subordinates who clearly understand the purpose and act to accomplish that purpose can
adapt to changing circumstances on their own without risking
diffusion of effort or loss of tempo. Subordinate commanders
MCDP 1-3
will be able to carry on this mission on their own initiative and
through lateral coordination with other subunits, rather than
running every decision through the higher commander for
A third way to become faster is through experience. Experience breeds speed. Experience gives units advantages over
other less experienced units. This is why veteran units are usually much faster than green, untried units. If we are familiar
with a situation or at least know generally what to expect, we
can think, act, and move faster. In peacetime, our Marines are
not likely to be combat veterans. Still, we can give them experience through tactical decision games, sand table exercises,
war games, field exercises, and rehearsals. These and other
forms of training help to reduce the stress and confusion of
Another way in which experience helps us become faster is
through the use of implicit communications. Implicit communications are mutual understandings that require little or no actual talking or writing. For example, two company commanders know each other well. They think alike because their
battalion commander has established standing operating procedures and has schooled subordinate commanders in an approach to war. Thus, the commander of Company B does not
need to talk with the commander of Company C very often in
action because each knows from common past experiences and
from daily observations how the other is likely to react in many
different situations. If B Company’s commander creates an
MCDP 1-3
Being Faster
opportunity, C Company’s commander will take advantage of
it. That is implicit communication. It is faster and more reliable
than explicit communication (trying to pass words or messages
back and forth over radios or telephones).
Of course, implicit communications must be developed over
time. This requires actions that strengthen unit cohesion and
mutual trust. This requires keeping people together in their
units and stable in their assignments. It implies keeping good
teams together. It means developing a band of brothers in our
units, as Admiral Horatio Nelson did. He spent many evenings
with his captains gathered in the cabin of his flagship talking
over tactics, ways they might fight different engagements, how
they would defeat this or that opponent. From those evenings
came a shared way of thinking so strong that, at Trafalgar,
Nelson needed only to signal “England expects every man will
do his duty,” and “Close action.”13 Sometimes words have
meaning beyond the normally obvious meaning because of
shared experiences and understanding.
Another way speed gains from experience is in the development of lateral communication, or coordination. If all communication is up and down the chain of command, action will
move slowly. If commanders and leaders at every level communicate laterally—if we, as leaders, talk directly to other leaders—action moves much faster. Lateral communication is not a
natural consequence of mission orders. It must be practiced in
training. It results from the confidence of the higher commander who through past experiences has found that
MCDP 1-3
subordinates can exercise initiative based on the assigned mission and the commander’s stated intent.
A good example of lateral communication comes from aviation. In the air, the pilots of a flight of aircraft communicate
laterally as a matter of course. A pilot who needs to talk to another does so. A message need not go through the mission commander and then be relayed to the other pilot. Events would
quickly outpace communication if pilots tried to talk that way.
The same procedures may be employed by ground combat and
logistics units as well.
A fourth way to become faster is by the commander’s positioning himself at the point of friction. This position may be
with the main effort, with a supporting effort, or in the rear. A
commander who is forward can instantly influence the battle as
the situation develops. For the same reason, a commander may
choose a position at a crucial crossroad during a night movement, or where a unit is pushing supplies forward, or where a
counterattack force in the defense may be sited. The key is to
be where we can best influence the actions of our units. As
Marines, we believe in leading from the front since that is
where most friction points occur, but they may occur elsewhere. We must choose our positions accordingly.
MCDP 1-3
Being Faster
Throughout World War II and his entire career, Lieutenant
General Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller believed that Marines had to
lead from where the fighting was. “This Command Post business will ruin the American Army and Marines if it isn’t
watched,”14 he said while he was the commanding officer of 1st
Battalion, 7th Marines, at Guadalcanal. As a battalion commander, Puller usually positioned himself directly behind the
point element of his battalion and his headquarters element directly behind the lead company so that he could best influence
the actions of his unit. From this location, he was able to impose his will and personally affect the outcome of the engagement. Depending on the situation, he could also be found at
other points on the march or on his perimeter. His idea was to
be where he could best influence the action.
Finally, it is important not only to be faster, but to maintain
that speed through time. This endurance is made possible
through physical and mental fitness. Physical fitness develops
not only the speed, energy, and agility to move faster, but it
also develops the endurance to maintain that speed for longer
durations. With endurance, we not only outpace the enemy but
maintain a higher tempo longer than he can. Mental fitness
builds the ability to concentrate for longer periods of time and
to penetrate below the surface of a problem. For this reason,
fitness plays an important part in the life of every Marine. Patton once said “High physical condition is vital to victory.”15
MCDP 1-3
We must be faster than our opponent. This means we must
move fast, but, more importantly, we must act faster than our
enemy. The aim is to tailor our tactics so that we can act faster
than the enemy force can react. Our ability to plan, decide, and
execute faster than our enemy creates advantage that we can
exploit. We have just discussed ways to improve our speed.
Readers of this publication may think of additional ways to be
fast. When you find one that works, tell your fellow Marines
about it so they can use it too. Anything that works to make
you faster is good even if it is not yet in the books.
Chapter 5
“Victory smiles upon those who anticipate the changes in the
character of war, not upon those who wait to adapt themselves after they occur.”1
—Giulio Douhet
“In any problem where an opposing force exists, and cannot
be regulated, one must foresee and provide for alternative
courses. Adaptability is the law which governs survival in war
as in life—war being but a concentrated form of the human
struggle against environment.”2
—B. H. Liddell Hart
MCDP 1-3
he modern battlefield is characterized by friction, uncertainty, disorder, and rapid change. Each situation is a
unique combination of shifting factors that cannot be controlled
with precision or certainty. This chapter discusses ways to
think about adapting or modifying our decisions based on
changed circumstances or sudden opportunities. A tactically
proficient leader must be able to adapt actions to each
The OODA loop discussed in chapter 4 essentially describes
the process of adaptation—we observe the situation, orient to
it, decide what to do, and act. The antagonist who can consistently adapt more quickly to the situation will have a significant advantage. Adaptability is thus an important part of
Marine Corps tactics. In essence, adaptability means shortening the time it takes to adjust to each new situation.
There are two basic ways to adapt. Sometimes we have
enough situational awareness to understand a situation in advance and take preparatory action. This is anticipation. At
other times we have to adapt to the situation on the spur of the
moment without time for preparation. This is improvisation.
To be fully adaptable, we must be able to do both.
MCDP 1-3
The first basic way to adapt is to anticipate, by which we mean
to introduce new methods, schemes, or techniques for future
use. In order to anticipate, we must be able to forecast future
actions, at least to some extent. Our forecasts are usually based
on past experiences. Often a forecast involves considering what
we learned through trial and error in training, exercises, or actual combat. An excellent example of anticipation is the Marine Corps’ development of amphibious warfare techniques at
Quantico during the 1920s and 1930s. These techniques
proved to be essential to success in World War II, both in the
Pacific and in Europe.
All planning at all echelons is a form of anticipatory adaptation—adapting our actions in advance. Another important tool
for tactical adaptation is the use of immediate-action drills or
standing operating procedures. These are practiced, predesigned, generic actions which cover common situations. Having a collection of these tools at our disposal allows us to react
immediately in a coordinated way to a broad variety of tactical
situations. Immediate-action drills do not replace the need for
tactical judgment; they merely provide a way to seize initiative
in the early stages of a developing situation until we can take
more considered action. They provide the basis for adaptation.
MCDP 1-3
The second basic way to adapt is to improvise, to adjust to a
situation on the spur of the moment without any preparation.
Like anticipation, improvisation is key to maneuver warfare.
Improvisation requires creative, intelligent, and experienced
leaders who have an intuitive appreciation for what will work
and what will not.
Improvisation is of critical importance to increasing speed.
It requires commanders who have a strong situational awareness and a firm understanding of their senior commander’s intent so that they can adjust their own actions in accordance
with the higher commander’s desires. Often we will find ourselves in a situation where our organic resources—weapons,
vehicles, and so on—are not adequate to keep us moving fast.
In France in 1940, German General Heinz Guderian put some
of his infantry in commandeered French buses. On Grenada,
when Army Rangers needed vehicles, they took East German
trucks belonging to the Grenadian army. Sound unorthodox?
There is nothing “orthodox” about failure due to an inability to
For instance, take the situation in which Marines of the 2d
Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, found themselves in the battle
of Hue City, Republic of Vietnam, in February 1968. One of
MCDP 1-3
their first objectives was to retake the city’s Treasury building,
which was heavily defended by the North Vietnamese. Prior to
the assault, the Marines were disappointed to see that their
mortar fire was having little effect on the building or its defenders. Then the battalion executive officer found some U.S.
tear gas canisters and dispensers in the Military Assistance
compound they had reoccupied. Realizing the North Vietnamese lacked gas masks, the Marines proceeded to lob the tear
gas canisters into the Treasury building. As a result of the executive officer’s quick thinking and adaptation, the North Vietnamese quickly vacated the building, and the Marines secured
the objective with minimal casualties.3
We have several techniques to help us develop adaptability.
One of these is to make flexible plans. Flexible plans can enhance adaptability by establishing a course of action that provides for multiple options. For example, a blocking position
that covers two avenues of approach from the same location instead of only one provides the flexibility to adapt to an enemy
coming through either avenue.
We can increase our flexibility by providing branches for
current and future operations. Branches are options (e.g.,
changing dispositions, orientation, strength, movement, or
MCDP 1-3
accepting or declining battle) to deal with changing conditions
on the battlefield that may affect the plan.4
Flexibility can also be increased by providing sequels for
current and future operations. Sequels are courses of action to
follow probable battle or engagement outcomes; victory, defeat, or stalemate.5
The value of branches and sequels is that they prepare us for
several different actions. We should keep the number of
branches and sequels to a relative few. We should not try to develop so many branches and sequels that we cannot adequately
plan, train, or prepare for any of them. The skillful, wellthought-out use of branches and sequels becomes an important
means of anticipating future courses of action. This anticipation helps accelerate the decision cycle and therefore increases
Flexible plans avoid unnecessary detail that not only consumes time in their development but has a tendency to restrict
subordinates’ latitude. Instead, flexible plans lay out what
needs to be accomplished but leave the manner of accomplishment to subordinates. This allows the subordinates the flexibility to deal with a broader range of circumstances.
Flexible plans are plans that can be easily changed. Plans
that require coordination are said to be “coupled.” If all the
parts of a plan are too tightly coupled, the plan is harder to
change because changing any one part of the plan means
MCDP 1-3
changing all the other parts. Instead, we should try to develop
modular, loosely coupled plans. Then if we change or modify
any one part of the plan, it does not directly affect all the other
Finally, flexible plans should be simple plans. Simple plans
are easier to adapt to the rapidly changing, complex, and fluid
situations that we experience in combat.
Another excellent way to improve adaptability is to decentralize decisionmaking authority as much as each situation allows.
This means that commanders on the scene and closest to the
events have the latitude to deal with the situation as required on
their own authority—but always in accordance with the higher
commander’s intent. This decentralization speeds up reaction
time: we do not have to wait for information to flow up to a
higher commander and orders to flow back down. It increases
the responsiveness of the organization, which in turn increases
adaptability. Decentralizing control through the use of mission
orders is one of the tools we use to maximize our ability to
Confidence in the abilities of subordinates plays an important part in decentralization. Leaders who have confidence in
MCDP 1-3
the capabilities of their subordinates will feel more comfortable
in granting them greater latitude in accomplishing tasks. It fosters a climate where senior leaders know that their intent will
be carried out. This was particularly true for the 1st Battalion,
7th Marines, during Operation Desert Storm. As the battalion
began breaching operations for the advance of the 1st Marine
Division across the first two Iraqi mine belts, Marines were
suddenly overwhelmed with “ ‘hundreds upon hundreds of
Iraqis sporting white flags’ ”7 who were trying to surrender.
The number was so great that it threatened to stop the Marine
advance. However, the battalion commander immediately recognized the situation, judged that the Iraqis were harmless, and
instructed the battalion not to stop to accept their surrender. “It
was precisely the . . . type of local situation that [the division
commander] wanted his commanders to recognize and use their
own initiative to correct.”8 Here the commanding officer who
was closest to the situation and who understood the division
commander’s intent not to lose the momentum of the advance
adapted to the situation. This adaptation resulted in a rapid
breach of Iraqi defenses.
Successful warfare is filled with examples of leaders adapt- ing
to changing situations. We must start to learn how to adapt
MCDP 1-3
now during our training. Leaders should value and encourage
innovative thinking. Moreover, they should expect creative
thinking from their subordinates because it creates new
For adaptation to be effective, commanders must readily exploit the opportunities uncovered by subordinates. Commanders cannot remain tied to plans that blind them to fleeting
opportunities. While making the best possible preparations,
they must welcome and take advantage of unforeseen
Chapter 6
“Unity of command (effort) is coordinated action toward a
common goal; it is cooperation. It is working together by all
commanders toward the accomplishment of a common mission, which is imperative for complete and final success.
Commanders must develop in their staffs and subordinates
the desire to cooperate, not only among themselves but with
other elements of the command.”1
—NAVMC 7386, Tactical Principles
“The first element of command and control is people—people
who gather information, make decisions, take action, communicate, and cooperate with one another in the accomplishment
of a common goal.”2
—MCDP 6, Command and Control
MCDP 1-3
verything that we have to do in tactics—gaining advantage and, above all, achieving a decisive result—needs a
team effort. If efforts are not in harmony, results may be indecisive. For example, if the aviation combat element’s actions
are not harmonized with those of the ground combat element,
they are unlikely to have a decisive effect. If artillery support is
not well coordinated with an infantry attack, combined arms
synergy will not be achieved, and the attack may fail. However,
achieving this team effort is easier said than done. It requires
rapidly maneuvering forces, often widely dispersed, to work together under the most adverse conditions.
Because war is characterized by chaos, uncertainty, and rapid
change, control quickly breaks down. It is probably a mistake
to speak of control in combat. MCDP 6 states that “given the
nature of war, it is a delusion to think that we can be in control
with any sort of certitude or precision.”3 As anyone who has
experienced combat will undoubtedly agree, it is impos- sible
to control everything. Attempts to impose control also can easily undermine the initiative upon which Marine Corps tactics
depends. Marines can become hesitant; they may feel they must
wait for orders before acting. We are not likely to move faster
or gain leverage over a competent opponent unless Marines at
every level exercise initiative.
MCDP 1-3
The dilemma, then, is this: How do we achieve the goal of
working together in harmony while exercising a more decentralized type of control?
The beginning of the answer lies in cooperation. We define cooperation as the union of self-discipline and initiative in pursuit
of a common goal. Cooperation can be viewed as a component
of control.
Control can generally be divided into two types: centralized
and decentralized. Centralized control tends to be in one direction and works from the top down: someone at a higher level
determines what subordinates will and will not do. Centralized
control makes us conform to higher dictates because only one
person does the thinking for the organization—the person in
In contrast, decentralized control works from the bottom up.
Command is the exercise of authority and guidance, and control is felt as feedback about the effects of the action taken because thinking is required at all levels. (See figure.) This
feedback allows the commander to adapt to changing circumstances and to command subsequent action. Cooperation is
MCDP 1-3
required in decentralized control. Subordinates work together
laterally and from the bottom up to accomplish tasks that fulfill
the commander’s intent. Cooperation means we take the initiative to help those around us accomplish our shared mis- sion.4
Cooperation is essential to Marine Corps tactics. The flight
leader and wingman work on the basis of cooperation. These
pilots cooperate with the infantry they support. Two infantry
units, fighting side by side, cooperate. A mobile combat service
Two views of the relationship
between command and control.
MCDP 1-3
support detachment and the mechanized force it supports cooperate. We all work together far more effectively when we communicate laterally than when we communicate only through
higher headquarters and respond only to centralized direction.
As an ancillary benefit, we relieve our overloaded communications networks.
The history of tactics is filled with examples where cooperation made the difference—and control could not. One such example occurred during an Iraqi counterattack in Operation
Desert Storm. Black smoke from burning oil wells turned the
day into night. A UH-1N Huey pilot used his night vision
equipment to lead flights of AH-1W Cobras through near-zero
visibility to attack Iraqi armored vehicles. The specially
equipped Huey designated targets so that the Cobras could engage them at near pointblank range with antiarmor Hellfire
missiles. For nearly 10 hours, the Huey pilot led flight after
flight into the pitched battle, earning the Navy Cross for
The pilots worked together to destroy targets the Huey could
not engage and the Cobra could not see. This example shows
what cooperation can accomplish.
MCDP 1-3
Cooperation can harmonize efforts and get everyone to work
together without the centralized control that undermines initiative. However, it raises a more fundamental question: How
do we prepare people to cooperate when the going gets tough?
The answer is discipline. “There is only one kind of discipline—PERFECT DISCIPLINE. If you do not enforce and
maintain discipline, you are potential murderers.”6 In the face
of adversity and difficulty, discipline enables individuals to
pursue what is best for those around them, their unit, and the
Marine Corps. Individuals and units might have the desire, but
without discipline they will be unable to accomplish the most
difficult tasks in combat—operating faster than the enemy,
gaining advantage, generating decisive force, and achieving decisive results.
In combat, instant obedience to orders is crucial. Orders
may not be popular, but there comes a point where they must
be carried out without question. Discipline is a result of training. In training for war, discipline should be firm, but fair. The
Marine Corps is known as a highly disciplined fighting force.
Discipline is one of the strengths that make Marines equally effective assaulting a beach, conducting a noncom-batant
evacuation operation, fighting a fire, or guarding our embassies. Nonetheless, discipline is founded not only on obedience
but also on a sense of duty.
MCDP 1-3
The discipline needed for cooperation comes from two
sources: imposed discipline and self-discipline. The first
source, imposed discipline, is more often associated with the
term “military discipline.” Imposed discipline, typified by the
Prussian approach, is characterized by instant obedience to orders. External in nature, it ensures compliance with established
procedures, rules, or guidance and direction from above. It is a
means to achieve efficiency in accomplishment of routine duties or drills. In its most extreme form, it can be rigid, paralyzing, and destructive of initiative. Imposed discipline also may
make units vulnerable to the effects of chaos and uncertainty
and unable to cooperate with one another.
Self-discipline is an internal force that morally obligates all
Marines to do what they know is right—in this case, to cooperate with every other Marine in the pursuit of a common goal.
The obligation is internal in each individual; it is something he
or she feels powerfully about. Coupled with a sense of camaraderie and esprit de corps, it pulls from within and causes Marines to do everything they can for fellow Marines. At the unit
level, this force can be felt as morale. “No system of tactics
can lead to victory when the morale of an army is bad.”7
Self-discipline can be seen in successful athletic teams as
well as military units. Team players instinctively back up their
teammates. In baseball, the outfielders cover each other on flyballs. In hockey, rarely does only one player rush the goal. In
football, offensive linemen do not stand by idly on a pass play
MCDP 1-3
if no defensive player faces them. They block the first defender
they can find. Members of squads and fire teams also work together as teams to accomplish tasks and take care of each
other. This cooperation among teammates cannot be enforced
by a coach or leader. It depends upon the self-discipline of the
Marine discipline is the self-discipline of a successful team,
not just the imposed discipline of the army of Frederick the
Great. For Marines, military discipline means accepting personal responsibility. Self-discipline will not allow us to shirk
responsibility or blame others. A discipline failure—often a
failure to act—is a personal failure.
Our form of discipline is also absolute. There is no time off.
Someone else may be in charge, but that does not absolve us
from the responsibility to do everything we can to achieve the
common goal. It does not reduce our responsibility to cooperate with fellow Marines in our unit and beyond.
This discipline is a mindset, a way of thinking and behaving. It runs through everything that we do. It is as much a part
of garrison life as of combat. We also carry this sense of personal responsibility and duty to contribute into our private
lives. We see it whenever off-duty Marines take the initiative to
help at the scene of an accident, act as leaders in their communities, or in other ways do more than their share. They do so
because of something inward, not because they are compelled
MCDP 1-3
by control. That something is self-discipline, and it is not limited to one aspect of life.
Modern tactics relies on cooperation. Cooperation, in turn, depends on discipline. Discipline consists of both imposed discipline and self-discipline. As leaders of Marines, we must create
a climate in which self-discipline and a high level of initiative
can flourish within the boundaries of military discipline. This
climate depends on us. Words are easy; anyone can give an occasional pep talk on the merits of self-discipline. Marines judge
actions, not words, and respond positively to leadership by example. If the leader creates a climate where perfect discipline is
expected and demonstrated, cooperation will follow.
Chapter 7
Exploiting Success
and Finishing
“Do not delay in the attack. When the foe has been split off
and cut down, pursue him immediately and give him no time
to assemble or form up . . . spare nothing. Without regard for
difficulties, pursue the enemy day and night until he has been
—Field Marshal Prince Aleksandr V. Suvorov
“Pursue the last man to the Adda and throw the remains into
the river.”2
—Field Marshal Prince Aleksandr V. Suvorov
“When we have incurred the risk of a battle, we should know
how to profit by the victory, and not merely content ourselves,
according to custom, with possession of the field.”3
—Maurice de Saxe
MCDP 1-3
Exploiting Success and Finishing
t is not enough merely to gain advantage. The enemy will not
surrender simply because he is placed at a disadvantage.
The successful leader exploits any advantage aggressively and
ruthlessly not once but repeatedly until the opportunity arises
for a finishing stroke. We must always be on the lookout for
such opportunities—whether we create them ourselves or they
arise in the flow of action—and when we perceive an opportunity to be decisive, we must seize it.
The application of Marine Corps tactics does not mean that
we expect to win effortlessly or bloodlessly or that we expect
the enemy to collapse just because we outmaneuver him. It
means we look for and make the most of every advantage and
apply the decisive stroke when the opportunity presents itself.
Once we have gained an advantage, we exploit it. We use it to
create new opportunities. We then exploit those opportunities
to create others, shaping the flow of action to our advantage.
The advantages do not necessarily have to be large; even small
favoring circumstances exploited repeatedly and aggressively
can quickly multiply into decisive advantages. Like the chess
grandmaster, we must think ahead to our next move and the
one beyond it: How am I going to use this advantage to create
another one? For example, in an attack by penetration, once
MCDP 1-3
we have created one advantage by punching through the enemy’s position and getting into his rear, we create another by
pouring forces through the gap, generating the “expanding torrent” that Liddell Hart wrote about.4
Rommel recounts how exploiting each advantage in the battle for Kuk in the Carpathian mountains during World War I
led to another opportunity. As his detachment exploited each
situation and moved farther behind the enemy lines, it generated more surprise and advantage. During this action, Rommel’s detachment captured thousands of enemy soldiers with
very little fighting, due largely to his unwillingness to lose momentum. One success led directly to another opportunity,
which he immediately seized.5
After the battle for Tarawa in November 1943, Major
Henry Crowe, Commanding Officer of 2d Battalion, 8th
Marines, was asked why he thought the Japanese had been defeated so quickly once the Marines were established ashore. He
remarked that it was due to the constant pressure of naval gunfire, bombs, and mortars. The Marines used their advantage in
supporting arms to create opportunities for success.6
Once we have created leverage, how do we take advantage of
it? A decisive result or victory rarely stems from the initial
MCDP 1-3
Exploiting Success and Finishing
action, no matter how successful. More often, victories are the
result of aggressively exploiting some relative advantage until
one becomes decisive and the action turns into a rout. Casualty
rates historically tend to remain relatively constant and often
fairly even until one side or the other tries to flee. Only then do
significantly asymmetrical casualty rates commonly occur.
This exploitation of the enemy’s bad situation can yield surprisingly great results.
We can take several specific types of actions to exploit opportunities we have created or discovered. The first way we
can exploit success is by consolidation—as when we consolidate our forces after seizing a position we intend to hold
against the enemy.7 Here our aims are limited to protecting
what we have already gained. We must realize that by consolidating, rather than continuing to force the issue, we may be
surrendering the initiative. There may be any number of reasons for choosing this course. Perhaps we lack the strength to
continue to advance. Our new gain may be of critical importance, and the risk of losing it outweighs the advantages of any
further gains. Perhaps the new gain by itself grants a significant advantage. For instance, a position that provides excellent
fires or threatens the enemy’s lines of communications may put
the enemy in an untenable position. Perhaps the new gain compels the enemy to meet us on our terms—for example, we seize
a critical piece of terrain with strong defensive qualities, forcing the enemy to attack on unfavorable terms.
The second way to pursue an advantage is through exploitation, an offensive tactic that is designed to disorganize the
MCDP 1-3
enemy in depth.8 Exploitation usually follows a successful attack that has created or exposed some enemy vulnerability. For
example, an attack that has torn a gap in enemy defenses allows us to attack vital enemy rear areas. The object of exploitation is not to destroy the combat forces directly opposing us,
even though they may be weakened. Instead, the object is to
disrupt the entire enemy system by attacking important activities and functions.
For example, during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the
Army’s Tiger Brigade was employed by the 2d Marine Division as an exploitation force during the division’s final attack.
The brigade had the advantage over the Iraqis in speed, firepower, and night combat capabilities. With these advantages
the Tiger Brigade sliced deep into the rear of the Iraqi III
Corps and sealed off the vital highway intersections north of Al
Jahra. The result was a total disruption of the Iraqi organized
The third way to exploit advantage is through pursuit. A
pursuit is an offensive tactic designed to catch or cut off a hostile force that has lost cohesion and is attempting to escape in
order to destroy it.10 If the intent is to bring about the final destruction or capture of the enemy’s forces, then pursuit should
be pushed with the utmost vigor. It is here that operations turn
into routs, and overwhelming victories often occur.
General Grant’s pursuit of General Lee’s Confederate Army
of Northern Virginia from Petersburg to Appomattox in April
MCDP 1-3
Exploiting Success and Finishing
1865 is a classic example of a pursuit. Here Grant pushed his
forces to their limits in order to prevent Lee’s escape. This ultimately led to the capture and surrender of Lee’s forces.11
The Confederate Army’s Lieutenant General Thomas J.
“Stonewall” Jackson summed up pursuit when he said, “Strike
the enemy and overcome him, never give up the pursuit as long
as your men have strength to follow; for an enemy routed, if
hotly pursued, becomes panic-stricken, and can be destroyed
by half their number.”12
Ultimately, we want to cultivate opportunities into a decisive
advantage. Once we do, we make the most of it. Marine Corps
tactics calls for leaders who are “strong finishers.” We must
have a strong desire to “go for the jugular.” We must be constantly trying to find or to create the opportunity to deliver the
decisive blow. At the same time, we must not be premature in
our actions. We must not make the decisive move before the
conditions are right.
This ability to finish the enemy once and for all derives first
from possessing an aggressive mentality. Second, it stems from
an understanding of the commander’s intent. Third, it stems
from a keen situational awareness that helps us recognize
MCDP 1-3
opportunities when they present themselves and understand
when the conditions are right for action.
The reserve is an important tool for exploiting success. The reserve is a part of the commander’s combat power initially withheld from action in order to influence future action.13 The
reason to create and maintain a reserve is to provide flexibility
to deal with the uncertainty, chance, and disorder of war. The
reserve is thus a valuable tool for maintaining adaptability. In
general, the more uncertain the situation, the larger should be
the reserve. Napoleon once said that “War is composed of
nothing but accidents, and . . . a general should never lose sight
of everything to enable him to profit from [those] accidents.”14
These accidents take the form of opportunities and crises. The
reserve is a key tactical tool for dealing with both.
The commander should have a purpose in mind for the reserve’s employment and design it to fulfill that purpose. To
truly exploit success may warrant assignment of the commander’s best subordinate unit or a preponderance of combat
power or mobility assets to the reserve. Those commanders
who properly organize, task, and equip their reserves are usually the ones with the capability to finish the enemy when the
opportunity arises.
MCDP 1-3
Exploiting Success and Finishing
Winston Churchill recognized the value of a reserve when he
wrote: “It is in the use and withholding of their reserves that
the great Commanders have generally excelled. After all, when
once the last reserve has been thrown in, the Commander’s part
is played . . . . The event must be left to pluck and to the fighting troops.”15
A strong reserve is also a way to retain the initiative. If an
advance slows, the reserve can increase the momentum. If an
advance picks up speed, the commitment of the reserve can
create a rout. We may use the reserve to expand or exploit
gaps or penetrations. We may commit the reserve to attack in a
different direction, thus exploiting opportunities for success instead of reinforcing failure. Without a strong reserve, even the
most promising opportunities can be lost.
A classic example of the use of the reserve is the battle for
Tarawa. With the 2d and 8th Marine Regiments held up on the
assault beaches, General Julian Smith decided to land the 6th
Marine Regiment, the division reserve, to break the stalemate.
The 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, which was task-or- ganized as
part of the division reserve, landed on the western end of the island, passed through 3d Battalion, 2d Marines, and from the
flank conducted a swift and violent assault of the Japanese fortifications across the island. Within 48 hours, the Japanese
forces were annihilated and the island secured. General Smith’s
use of his reserve to exploit success and finish the enemy was
the key to victory at Tarawa.16 (See figure.)
MCDP 1-3
Sometimes we must employ the reserve to deal with some
crisis, rendering it temporarily unavailable for commitment
elsewhere. In such instances, a reserve should be reconstituted
as rapidly as possible. We should look for the opportunity to
employ the reserve to reinforce success. However we may employ the reserve, we should always think of it as the tool for
clinching the victory. In this respect, Marshal Foch wrote that
“the reserve is a club, prepared, organized, reserved, carefully
maintained with a view to carrying out the one act of battle
MCDP 1-3
Exploiting Success and Finishing
from which a result is expected—the deci- sive attack.”17 It is
generally through offensive action, even in the defense, that we
achieve decisive results. Since the reserve represents our bid to
achieve a favorable decision or to prevent an unfavorable one,
it often becomes the main effort once committed and should be
supported by all the other elements of the force.
Along with the tangible assets used as a reserve, the prudent
commander must also be aware of, and plan for, the intangible
factors that impact on combat power and its sustainment. Intangible factors include fatigue, leadership quality, proficiency,
morale, teamwork, and equipment maintenance. We build reserves also by reserving aviation sortie rates or numbers, withholding unique or low-density munitions, or holding critical
supplies such as fuel or petroleum, oils, and lubricants for a
specific goal. We consider these intangible factors when creating and tasking the reserve, as we do in all assignments of
These concepts apply not only to units initially designated as
the reserve but also to any unit, since any unit can be shifted or
recommitted as the reserve. Thus a commander must always be
mentally prepared to redesignate roles of units and to create
and use reserves as the situation requires.18
MCDP 1-3
Most decisive victories do not result from the initial action, but
from quickly and aggressively exploiting the opportuni- ties
created by that action. We may find any number of ways to exploit tactical opportunity, but they all have the same object—to
increase leverage until we have the final opportunity to decide
the issue once and for all in our favor. A goal in Marine Corps
tactics is not merely to gain advantage but to boldly and ruthlessly exploit that advantage to achieve final victory.
Chapter 8
Making It Happen
“Nine-tenths of tactics are certain, and taught in books: but
the irrational tenth is like the kingfisher flashing across the
pool and that is the test of generals. It can only be ensured by
instinct, sharpened by thought practicing the stroke so often
that at the crisis it is as natural as a reflex.”1
—T. E. Lawrence
“It cannot be too often repeated that in modern war, and especially in modern naval war, the chief factor in achieving
triumph is what has been done in the way of thorough preparation and training before the beginning of war.”2
—Theodore Roosevelt
MCDP 1-3
Making It Happen
eading and understanding the ideas in this publication
are the initial steps on the road to tactical excellence.
The primary way a Marine leader becomes an able tactician is
through training and education, both of which are firmly rooted
in doctrine. Doctrine establishes the philosophy and practical
framework for how we fight. Education develops the understanding, creativity, military judgment, and the background essential for effective battlefield leadership. Training follows
doctrine and develops the tactical and technical proficiency that
underlies all successful military action. Individual and group
exercises serve to integrate training and education, producing a
whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. The lessons
learned from training and operational experience then modify
Doctrine establishes the fundamental beliefs of the Marine
Corps on the subject of war and how we practice our profession.3 Doctrine establishes a particular way of thinking
about war and our way of fighting, a philosophy for leading
Marines in combat, a mandate for professionalism, and a common language. Doctrinal development benefits from our collective experience and distills its lessons to further education and
MCDP 1-3
Our doctrine within the Marine Corps begins with the philosophy contained in MCDP 1, Warfighting. This philosophy
underlies publications in the Marine Corps Warfighting Publications series that contain tactics, techniques, and procedures
for specific functions. This body of thought helps form Marine
tacticians through its implementation in education and training.
(See figure.)
The doctrinal development cycle.
While combat provides the most instructive lessons on decisionmaking, tactical leaders cannot wait for war to begin their
MCDP 1-3
Making It Happen
education. We must be competent in our profession before our
skills are called upon. The lives of our Marines depend on it.
Our education in tactics must develop three qualities within all tactical leaders. The first quality is creative ability. Tactical leaders must be encouraged to devise and pursue unique
approaches to military problems. No rules govern ingenuity.
The line separating boldness from foolhardiness is drawn by
the hand of practical experience. That said, an education in
tactics must possess an element of rigor. Too often, tactical
discussions lack an in-depth analysis of cause and effect. The
tactically proficient leader must learn how to analyze solutions
to tactical problems. Lacking such a rigorous analysis, the tactician will not learn from experience nor exercise creative
The second quality is military judgment, which includes the
skills for gaining situational awareness and acting decisively.
The tactician must readily recognize the critical factors in any
situation—enemy capabilities, weather, terrain characteristics,
and the condition of our own forces, to mention just a few. Marine leaders must be able to cut to the heart of a situation by
identifying its important elements, developing a sound plan,
and making clear decisions. Our educational approach should
emphasize the ability to understand the mission, issue a clear
intent, and determine the main effort.
MCDP 1-3
The third quality is moral courage. Moral courage is the
ability to make and carry out the decision regardless of personal cost. It is different from—and rarer than—physical courage. The cost of physical courage may be injury or death,
whereas the cost of moral courage may be the loss of friends,
popularity, prestige, or career opportunities. The burden of
conflicting responsibilities in combat—responsibility for the
lives of subordinates, support for peers, loyalty to superiors,
duty to the Nation—can be heavy. Our educational efforts
should lead potential leaders to work through the proper
resolution of such conflicts in peacetime. Leaders often need to
make morally correct decisions in combat, but there will rarely
be time for deep moral or ethical contemplation on the
An effective leader willingly takes on the risks which come
with military responsibilities. In that light, the greatest failing
of a leader is a failure to lead. Two steadfast rules apply. First,
in situations clearly requiring independent decisions, a leader
has the solemn duty to make them. Whether the subsequent action succeeds or fails, the leader has made an honorable effort.
The broad exercise of initiative by all Marines will likely carry
the battle in spite of individual errors. Second, inaction and
omission based on a failure of moral courage are much worse
than any judgment error reflecting a sincere effort to act. Errors resulting from such moral failings lead not only to tactical
setbacks but to the breakdown of faith in the chain of command. Proper training, education, and concerned leadership are
MCDP 1-3
Making It Happen
the keys to instilling the qualities of creative ability, military
judgment, and moral courage in the minds of all Marines.
Good tactics depend upon sound technical skills. These are the
techniques and procedures which enable us to move, shoot, and
communicate. We achieve technical competence through training. We build skills through repetition. Training also instills
confidence in weapons and equipment. It develops the specialized skills essential to functioning in combat.
One of the ultimate aims of training is speed. Essential to
speed is the requirement for accuracy. Speed without accuracy
may be counterproductive and causes more damage than inaction. Whether Marines compute firing data, practice rifle
marksmanship or weapons gunnery, rearm and refuel aircraft,
repair vehicles, stock or transport supplies, or communicate information, the speed and accuracy of their actions determine
the tempo of the overall force. Training develops the proficiency which enables this effective combination of speed and
Small-unit training should focus on proficiency in such techniques and procedures as immediate-action drills, battle drills,
and unit standing operating procedures. Practicing to reach
MCDP 1-3
technical proficiency applies to all types of units, whether a
section of aircraft executing air combat maneuvers, a maintenance contact team repairing a vehicle under fire, an artillery
gun team conducting displacement drills, or a rifle squad conducting an in-stride breach of an obstacle. We develop and refine these measures so that units gain and maintain the speed
and accuracy essential for success in battle.
Staffs, like units and individual leaders, must train to increase speed and accuracy. Staffs increase speed by accomplishing three things: first, by obtaining and organizing
information to help the commander and themselves understand
the situation; second, by understanding the commander’s decision and coordinating efforts to focus combat power to achieve
the commander’s goal; and third, by monitoring events, maintaining situational awareness, and anticipating and adapting to
changes. As staffs train, they increase accuracy by becoming
more proficient both in their respective areas and in functioning
as a team.
Field Marshal Erwin Rommel knew the value of speed and
accuracy for his staff when he wrote:
A commander must accustom his staff to a high tempo from
the outset, and continuously keep them up to it. If he once allows himself to be satisfied with norms, or anything less than
an all-out effort, he gives up the race from the starting post,
and will sooner or later be taught a bitter lesson.4
MCDP 1-3
Making It Happen
The speed and efficiency of a unit depend not only on the
technical proficiency of its individual members but also in
large part upon its cohesiveness. Such cohesion requires both
personnel stability and solid leadership.
Training should also prepare Marines for the uniquely physical nature of combat. Living and caring for themselves in a
spartan environment, confronting the natural elements, and experiencing the discomfort of being hungry, thirsty, and tired are
as essential in preparing for combat duty as any skills training.
The point is not to train individuals on how to be miserable,
but rather on how to be effective when miserable or exhausted.
Likewise, training should enable us to take appropriate action in any environment and at any time. This readiness includes operating during inclement weather and periods of
limited visibility. We must make terrain, weather, and darkness
our allies if we are to gain advantage and deliver decisive force
at a time and place of our choosing. We can neither anticipate
nor appreciate the inherent friction that these natural factors
produce unless we experience them.5
There is no single “best” approach to developing tactical proficiency. However, any approach should be adaptable to all
echelons and to all grades. The environment should be one that
MCDP 1-3
is challenging and conducive to creative thinking. Like all
preparation for war, training should reflect the rigors of that
environment. The following examples may provide some tools
for developing tactical proficiency in Marines.
Professional Reading and Historical Study
Because of the relative infrequency of actual combat experiences in most military leaders’ careers, Marines must seek to
expand their understanding through other, less direct means.
The study of military history is critical to developing judgment
and insight. It enables us to see how successful commanders
have thought through—and fought through—the situations
they faced. Not many people can do it instinctively—few possess the rare native ability to think militarily. Even those few
can enhance their abilities through study and practice.
Historical studies provide the most readily available source
of indirect experience in our profession. These studies describe
the leadership considerations, the horrors of war, the sacrifices
endured, the commitment involved, the resources required, and
much more. These studies include biographies and autobiographies of military figures, books on specific battles, wars, and
military institutions, unit histories, after-action reports, films,
and documentaries. Group discussions help to expand the insights into leadership and battle that we have gained through
individual study.
MCDP 1-3
Making It Happen
Professional readings and study are not solely the responsibility of military schools. Individuals cannot afford to wait for
attendance at a military school to begin a course of selfdirected study. Military professionalism demands that individuals and units find time to increase their professional knowledge
through professional reading, professional military education
classes, and individual study.
Tactical Exercises
Tactical success evolves from the synthesis of training and
education—the creative application of technical skills based
on sound judgment. Exercises enable leaders to practice decisionmaking and individuals, staffs, and units to practice and
perfect collective skills. Exercises also serve to test and improve tactics, techniques, and procedures, immediate actions,
battle drills, and combat standing operating procedures.
An exercise should serve as a unit’s internal assessment of
the quality of its training and education, not as grading criteria
for higher commands. The conclusions should aim to note
shortfalls so as to address them through future instruction and
not to penalize poor performance. A unit will never be fully
trained. There will always be room for improvement.
Exercises also test the ability of units to sustain tempo for
an extended period of time. Since victory is rarely the product
of single actions, the ability to operate and sustain combat effectiveness over time is important. Knowing when hostilities
MCDP 1-3
will cease is a convenience denied the combat Marine. Equipment must be maintained, and people must be sustained with
adequate rest, nourishment, and hygiene until they accomplish
their mission.
Tactical exercises can range from field exercises to command post exercises to tactical exercises without troops. Field
exercises, conducted by units of any size, involve all unit personnel working together to learn, test, and refine their collective
battlefield tasks. Such exercises can be general in nature, or
they can be detailed rehearsals for specific upcoming missions.
Command post exercises are largely limited to commanders
and their staffs. Their purpose is to familiarize staffs with their
commanders’ personal preferences and operating styles as well
as to exercise staff techniques and procedures and to review
particular contingency plans.
Tactical exercises without troops provide tactical leaders
opportunities to exercise judgment while permitting other unit
elements to conduct training and education of their own. There
are two approaches to conducting them.
The first method provides a leader an opportunity to evaluate a subordinate’s ability to perform in a given scenario. This
method places students in an area of operations and provides a
situation upon which to plan and execute a task—for example,
“Establish a reverse slope defense.” The aim here is to exercise
MCDP 1-3
Making It Happen
tactical proficiency in the siting of weapons and the use of
The second method also places students in an area of operations and provides a situation but gives them a mission order—for example, “Prevent enemy movement north of Route
348.” The aim here is to exercise judgment. After walking the
ground, the students must first decide whether to defend or attack, supporting their conclusions with reasoning. The reasoning is then discussed and criticized. This approach encourages
students to demonstrate ingenuity and initiative. They have free
rein to employ their resources as they see fit to achieve the desired results.6
Wargames can be a valuable tool for understanding the many
factors that influence a leader’s decisions. Morale, enemy and
friendly situations, the higher commander’s intentions, firepower, mobility, and terrain are only a few of the decision factors included in the play of wargames. In all these simulations,
from the sand table to a commercial board game to a computerized simulation, routine should be avoided. The less familiar
the environment, the more creativity the student must display.
Sand table exercises, tactical decision games, and map exercises present students with a general situation, mission orders,
and a minimum of information on enemy and friendly forces.
Sand table exercises are especially suited to novice tacticians.
They present the terrain in three-dimensional array, whereas a
MCDP 1-3
map requires interpretation. Both map and sand table exercises
enable students to conceptualize the battle, deliver their decisions, and issue orders to subordinates. Afterwards, students
discuss their decisions and are critiqued. The discussion should
focus on making a decision in the absence of perfect information or complete intelligence.
Terrain Walks
Terrain walks introduce the realities of terrain, vegetation, and
weather. Terrain walks can be conducted in at least two ways.
The first method provides students with an area of operations, a general situation (usually depicted on a map), and a
mission. As in sand table and map exercises, students describe
their view of the battle. Choosing one plan, the group then begins to walk the terrain according to the plan. The group will
then encounter unanticipated terrain and obstacles, while the
instructors introduce enemy actions into the play of the problem. In this way, students must contend with the disparity between actual terrain and vegetation and maps as well as the
chaos and uncertainty generated by enemy actions that invariably occur in real-world operations.
The second method involves the firsthand study of historic
battlefields. We gain a special vantage on battle by walking the
ground and seeing the battlefield from the perspective of both
commanders. We gain a new appreciation for an historical
commander’s blunders. Often such blunders seem incomprehensible—until we see the ground. Only then can we
MCDP 1-3
Making It Happen
realistically consider alternative courses of action that the commander might have pursued.7
Exercises should provide realism. The means to achieve tactical realism are competitive free-play or force-on-force exercises. Whenever possible, unit training should be conducted in
a free-play scenario. This approach can be used by all leaders
to develop their subordinates. It affords both leaders and unit
members the opportunity to apply their skills and knowledge
against an active threat.
Free-play exercises are adaptable to all tactical scenarios
and beneficial to all echelons. Whether it is fire teams scouting
against fire teams, sections of aircraft dueling in the sky, or
companies, battalions, squadrons, and Marine air-ground task
forces operating against one another, both leaders and individual Marines benefit. Leaders form and execute their decisions
against an opposing force as individual Marines employ their
skills against an active enemy. Through free-play exercises,
Marines learn to fight as an organization and to deal with a realistically challenging foe.8
A key attribute of decisionmakers is their ability to reach decisions with clear reasoning. Critiques elicit this reasoning process. Any tactical decision game or tactical exercise should
culminate with a critique.
MCDP 1-3
The standard approach for conducting critiques should promote initiative. Since every tactical situation is unique and
since no training situation can encompass more than a small
fraction of the peculiarities of a real tactical situation, there can
be no ideal or school solution. Critiques should focus on the
students’ rationale for doing what they did. What factors did a
student consider, or not consider, in making an estimate of the
situation? Were the decisions the student made consistent with
this estimate? Were the actions ordered tactically sound? Did
they have a reasonable chance of achieving success? How well
were the orders communicated to subordinates? These questions should form the basis for critiques. The purpose is to
broaden a leader’s analytical powers, experience level, and
base of knowledge, thereby increasing the student’s creative
ability to devise sound, innovative solutions to difficult
Critiques should be open-minded and understanding, rather
than rigid and harsh. Mistakes are essential to the learning
process and should always be cast in a positive light. The focus
should not be on whether a leader did well or poorly, but rather
on the progress achieved in overall development. We must aim
to provide the best climate to grow leaders. Dam- aging a leader’s self-esteem, especially in public, therefore should be
strictly avoided. A leader’s self-confidence is the wellspring
from which flows the willingness to assume responsibility and
exercise initiative.9
MCDP 1-3
Making It Happen
In this publication, we have explored themes that help us to understand the fundamentals and to master the art and science of
tactics. From the study of our warfighting philosophy, we have
gained an appreciation for the requirement to be decisive in
battle. To accomplish this, we must clearly visualize the battlespace through gained situational awareness, recognize patterns, and make decisions intuitively. We have also discussed
ways we can gain advantage over the enemy and force him to
bend to our will. We also explored how to be faster in relation
to the enemy, to adapt to changing conditions, to cooperate for
success, to exploit success, and to finish the enemy. Finally, we
discussed how we can begin to act on these ideas during our
training for combat. The ideas presented in this publication
have implications far beyond battlefield tactics and the doctrinal way we think about warfare. They also influence the way
we organize—using task organization and flexible command
and control relationships—and the way we equip ourselves for
Waging war in maneuver warfare style demands a professional body of officers and Marines schooled in its science and
art. When asked why the Marines were so successful in Operation Desert Storm, General Boomer replied:
The thing that made the big difference on the battlefield is
that we had thousands and thousands of individual Marines
constantly taking the initiative. The young lance corporal
MCDP 1-3
would take a look, see something 75 or 100 meters out in
front that needed to be done, and go out and do it without being told. As I read through [the] award citations from Desert
Shield and Desert Storm, this theme reappears, time and time
again. That aggressive spirit comes from being well-trained,
and confident in your professional knowledge.10
Everything we do in peacetime should prepare us for combat. Our preparation for combat depends upon training and
education that develop the action and thought essential to
MCDP 1-3
Understanding Tactics
1. Statement by Gen A. M. Gray, former Commandant of the
Marine Corps, during a ceremony commemorating the anniversary
of the groundbreaking for the Marine Corps Research Center, June
20, 1997.
2. Sir William Slim, Defeat into Victory (London: Cassell
and Co. Ltd., 1956) pp. 550-551.
3. MCDP 1, Warfighting (June 1997) p. 30. MCDP 1’s definition differs from that given in Joint Pub 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms: “tactics—1.
The employment of units in combat. 2. The ordered arrangement
and maneuver of units in relation to each other and/or to the enemy
in order to use their full potentialities.”
Ibid., p. 3.
5. Combat power: “The total means of destructive and/or
disruptive force which a military unit/formation, can apply against
the opponent at a given time.” (Joint Pub 1-02)
6. LtCol G. I. Wilson, “The Gulf War, Maneuver Warfare,
and the Operational Art,” Marine Corps Gazette (June 1991) pp.
7. This example was taken from Joseph H. Alexander, Utmost Savagery; The Three Days of Tarawa (Annapolis, MD: Naval
Institute Press, 1995).
MCDP 1-3
8. Bill D. Ross, Iwo Jima: Legacy of Valor (NY: Vanguard
Press, 1985) pp. 79–80.
9. Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. and eds. Michael
Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1984) p. 119.
10. Medal of Honor Recipients 1863–1973 (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973) p. 492.
11. Clausewitz, p. 85.
12. Infantry in Battle (Washington, D.C.: The Infantry Journal, Incorporated, 1939) p.1.
Achieving a Decision
Infantry in Battle, p. 1.
FMFM 1, Warfighting (March 1989) p. 61.
3. Martin Blumenson, Anzio: The Gamble That Failed
(Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1963).
4. Shelby Foote, The Civil War: A Narrative (NY: Random
House, 1963) pp. 467–468.
5. Maj Charles D. Melson, Evelyn A. Englander, Capt David
A. Dawson, comps., U.S. Marines in the Persian Gulf, 1990–1991:
Anthology and Annotated Bibliography (Washington, D.C.:
MCDP 1-3
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, History and Museums Division,
1992) p. 181. Also see pages 173–182 of the same publication and
LtCol Charles H. Cureton, U.S. Marines in the Persian Gulf,
1990–1991: With the 1st Marine Division in Desert Shield and Desert Storm (Washington, D.C.: Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps,
History and Museums Division, 1993) pp. 26–27.
Gaining Advantage
1. Robert Debs Heinl, Jr., Col, USMC, Retired, Dictionary of
Military and Naval Quotations (Annapolis, MD: United States Naval Institute, 1966) p. 321.
FMFM 1, p. 57.
3. Combined arms: “The tactics, techniques, and procedures
employed by a force to integrate firepower and mobility to produce
a desired effect upon the enemy.” FMFRP 0-14, Marine Corps Supplement to the DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms
(January 1994).
4. Martin Blumenson, The Patton Papers, vol. 2 (Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1974) pp. 39–40.
5. Andrew Geer, The New Breed (NY: Harper & Brothers,
1952) p. 339.
Ibid., pp. 365–366.
MCDP 1-3
7. Joe Douglas Dodd, “Night Attack on Kunishi Ridge,”
Marine Corps Gazette (April 1985) p. 43.
Ibid., pp. 42–44.
9. Sun Tzu, The Art of War, trans. Samuel B. Griffith (NY:
Oxford University Press, 1963) p. 91.
10. Ibid., p. 106.
11. Maj Robert R. Parker, Jr., “Deception: The Missing Tool,”
Marine Corps Gazette (May 1992) p. 97.
12. Sun Tzu, p. 98.
13. The Marines in Vietnam, 1954-1973: An Anthology and
Annotated Bibliography (Washington, D.C.: Headquarters, U.S.
Marine Corps, History and Museums Division, 1985) pp. 173–181.
14. FMFM 6-7, Scouting and Patrolling for Infantry Units
(January 1989) p. 2-1.
15. Sun Tzu, p. 93.
Being Faster
Heinl, p. 220.
John A. English, On Infantry (NY: Praeger, 1984) p. 223.
MCDP 1-3
3. Jeter A. Isley and Philip A. Crowl, The U.S. Marines and
Amphibious War: Its Theory, and Its Practice in the Pacific
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951) p. 338.
4. Peter G. Tsouras, Warrior’s Words: A Quotation Book:
From Sesostris III to Schwarzkopf, 1871 B.C. to A.D. 1991 (London: Cassell Arms and Armour, 1992), p. 434.
Heinl, p. 63.
“Command,” Time (January 25, 1943) p. 61.
7. Col Ray Smith, USMC, telephone interview by Capt S. R.
Shoemaker, USMC, 12 March 1991, Washington, D.C..
8. Gen Hermann Balck, interview by William S. Lind, 6 June
1980, Washington, D.C..
9. William S. Lind, Maneuver Warfare Handbook (Boulder,
CO: Westview Press, 1985) pp. 5–6.
10. Gen George S. Patton, Jr., War As I Knew It (NY: Bantam
Books, Inc., 1979) p. 323.
11. Ibid., pp. 330–331.
12. English, p. 217.
13. Capt A. T. Mahan, USN, The Life of Nelson: The Embodiment of the Sea Power of Great Britain (Boston: Little, Brown,
and Co., 1899) p. 730.
MCDP 1-3
14. FMFRP 12-110, Fighting on Guadalcanal (September
1991) p. 33.
15. Patton, p. 376.
Tsouras, p. 21.
Ibid., p. 21.
3. Keith William Nolan, Battle for Hue (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1983) pp. 51–52.
4. Branch: “A contingency plan or course of action (an option built into the basic plan or course of action) for changing the
mission, disposition, orientation, or direction of movement of the
force to aid success of the operation based on anticipated events,
opportunities, or disruptions caused by enemy actions and reactions
as determined during the wargaming process.” MCRP 5-2A, Operational Terms and Graphics (June 1997).
5. Sequel: “Major operations that follow the current major
operation. Plans for these are based on the possible outcomes (victory, stalemate, or defeat) associated with the current operation.”
(MCRP 5-2A).
6. See MCDP 5, Planning, for a more complete discussion of
modular plans.
MCDP 1-3
Cureton, p. 77.
Ibid, p. 77.
1. NAVMC 7386, Tactical Principles (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps Schools, 1955) p. 7–8.
MCDP 6, Command and Control (October 1996) p. 48.
Ibid., p. 43.
Ibid., pp. 39–41.
Melson, Englander, and Dawson, comps., p. 140.
Patton, p. 376.
Heinl, p. 196.
Exploiting Success and Finishing
Tsouras, p. 349.
Ibid., p. 349.
Heinl, p. 109.
MCDP 1-3
4. Capt B. H. Liddell Hart, “The ‘Man-in-the-Dark’ Theory
of Infantry Tactics and the ‘Expanding Torrent’ System of Attack,”
Journal of the R.U.S.I. (February 1921) p. 13.
5. Erwin Rommel, Attacks (Vienna, VA: Athena Press, 1979)
pp. 235–250.
6. FMFRP 12-90, Second Marine Division Report on Gilbert
Islands—Tarawa Operation (September 1991) p. 51.
7. Consolidation of position: “Organizing and strengthening
a newly captured position so that it can be used against the enemy.”
(Joint Pub 1-02)
8. Exploitation: “An offensive operation that usually follows
a successful attack and is designed to disorganize the enemy in
depth.” (Joint Pub 1-02)
9. Col Charles J. Quilter, II, U.S. Marine Corps in the Persian Gulf, 1990–1991: With the I Marine Expeditionary Force in
Desert Shield and Desert Storm (Washington, D.C.: Headquarters,
U.S. Marine Corps, History and Museums Division, 1993) p. 99.
10. Pursuit: “An offensive operation designed to catch or cut
off a hostile force attempting to escape, with the aim of destroying
it.” (Joint Pub 1-02)
11. Bruce Catton, This Hallowed Ground: The Story of the
Union Side of the Civil War (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1956) p. 384.
MCDP 1-3
12. Heinl, p. 259.
13. Reserve: “Portion of a body of troops which is kept to the
rear, or withheld from action at the beginning of an engagement,
available for a decisive moment.” Tactical reserve: “A part of a
force, held under the control of the commander as a maneuvering
force to influence future action.” (Joint Pub 1-02)
14. Brig Gen Thomas R. Phillips, U.S. Army, ed., “Military
Maxims of Napoleon,” in Roots of Strategy: A Collection of Military Classics (Harrisburg, PA: Military Service Publishing Co.,
1940) p. 436.
15. Heinl, p. 275.
16. This example was taken from Martin Russ, Line of Departure: TARAWA (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.,
17. Heinl, p. 274.
18. Much of the material in this section is based on Capt John
F. Schmitt’s article, “The Use of the Reserve in Combat,” Marine
Corps Gazette (March 1990) pp. 63–69.
Making It Happen
1. T. E. Lawrence, “The Science of Guerrilla Warfare,”
introduction to “Guerrilla Warfare,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 13th
ed. (NY: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1926).
MCDP 1-3
Heinl, p. 329.
3. Doctrine: “Fundamental principles by which the military
forces or elements thereof guide their actions in support of national
objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application.”
(Joint Pub 1-02)
As attributed to Erwin Rommel by Heinl, p. 60.
For more detailed information on the establishment of
unit training programs, see MCRP 3-0A, Unit Training Management Guide (November 1996).
6. For more detailed readings on the subject of designing and
executing training exercises, see MCRP 3-0B, How to Conduct
Training (November 1996).
7. William Glenn Robertson, The Staff Ride (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History, 1987) provides an excellent description of the use of terrain walks. See also Staff Ride
Handbook (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University, 1996).
8. This section reflects the emphasis found in MCDP 1, Warfighting, regarding the requirement to simulate the “clash of opposing wills” found in combat by conducting free-play exercises.
9. The subject of how to conduct critiques and hold afteraction reviews is covered in detail in both MCRP 3-0A and MCRP
10. Melson, Englander, and Dawson, comps., p. 94.
MCDP 1-3
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF