This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force North American military history task force United States military history task force United States: Government High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

What was ill-fated about this? 67.186.14.18 (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Schelling has nothing to do with choke points. I'll remove that.

Wynnes—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.188.108.48 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 19 June 2006.

I could very well be wrong, but I believe the core statement "The point of AirLand doctrine is to stop second-echelon forces from reinforcing the enemy" is wrong. I believe that that is actually a description of a different doctrine known as "Follow-On Force Attack". AirLand Battle as a doctrine is primarily concerned with forces in the forward battle area (i.e. first echelon forces). My source for this information is "Military Strategy in Transiion: Defense and Deterrence in the 1980s", pp 5-6.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bmacmahon (talk • contribs) 00:42, 10 August 2006.

Tmdblya

Seems the example given from the Gulf War is a poor one. The destruction of units int he front and back of the column to halt its advance while subsequent attacks wiped out the rest of the formation has little to do with the larger AirLand battle doctrine. This might more compared to Finnish "motti" tactics used in the Winter War of 1939-40. Recommend removal.

As for the disagreement with the emphasis in the article re: first/second eschelon attacks, I think the additional references I've added would back-up the current article's description.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tmdblya (talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 September 2006.

Doesn't appear to be much interest in this doctrine now, but what there is to the article is so "Army-centric", in the argot of the article,that it's POV.--131.238.92.85 (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the article refers to the role of the airforce. There is practically nothing about the army, though it was an army doctrine.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/753491.shtml For a long time, the Air-Sea Battle (ASB) concept has prevailed in the US. ... As senior US officials and experts seek a way out, T. X. Hammes, a retired US Marine Corps colonel, recently published an article, "Offshore Control is the Answer," in Proceedings Magazine under the US Naval Institute.

Okay to add that in? Hcobb (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However Air-Sea Battle is about as far as one can possibly get from the new concept of operations.

So will the new spin-off page be say AirSea Battle with pointers at the top of each of the two pages to get readers back on the right track? Hcobb (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a lot more radiant with a couple of images to make it a bit less of a wall of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelaxe (talk • contribs) 19:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]