MCDP 1: Warfighting¶
Corps, U. S. M. (1997). MCDP 1: Warfighting.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Initiative Loss
- US manoeuvre warfare doctrine (FM 3-0, USMC Warfighting) treats initiative as the primary operational currency
This sourceUSMC Warfighting (MCDP 1) doctrine holding initiative to be 'clearly the preferred form of action' and a constant imperative to seize and maintain.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- US manoeuvre warfare doctrine (FM 3-0, USMC Warfighting) treats initiative as the primary operational currency
- Maneuver Warfare
- The contrast class is attrition warfare — defeating an adversary by destroying their force directly through sustained exchange of losses — which maneuver doctrine explicitly defines itself against, on the grounds that attrition contests favour the side with more mass and time, not the side with faster decision cycles
This sourceMCDP 1's contrast between warfare by attrition, which pursues victory through cumulative destruction by superior firepower on numerical and material superiority, and warfare by maneuver, whose weapon is tempo. MCDP 1's placing of the 1940 German campaign among the paradigm cases of warfare by maneuver, and its statement that Marine Corps doctrine is based principally on maneuver.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“Warfare by attrition pursues victory through the cumulative destruction of the enemy's material assets by superior firepower.”
- The contrast class is attrition warfare — defeating an adversary by destroying their force directly through sustained exchange of losses — which maneuver doctrine explicitly defines itself against, on the grounds that attrition contests favour the side with more mass and time, not the side with faster decision cycles
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:775750678e4c · see in the full table